14 replies to this topic

[YOLF]

I was just reading this, and I'm wondering what free radicals or apoptosis inducing supplements are available.

[Dorian Grey]

Iron and Copper are the ultimate pro-oxidants and are widely available...  Bump your levels up high enough and you'll have hydroxyl radicals raging throughout your body in no time.  http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/7657835  "Iron supplementation generates hydroxyl radical in vivo".   Hydroxyls are the ultimate free radicals as they are like little breeder reactors for lesser radicals.  

 

Keeping your body pH on the acidic side will keep these transition metals in their reactive form.  Hypoxia is the easiest way to lower pH so sleep apnea at night and smoking during the day should keep you on the acid side. Tobacco smoke particulate also contains a lot of iron which will generate additional free radicals in your lungs.  

 

Avoid foods high in Vitamin-E like the plague as E is the bodies primary lipid antioxidant.  With elevated transition metals, an acid pH and vitamin E deficiency, you'll turn all the lipids in your body rancid in no time.  The lipid content of brain tissue is quite high (35-80%) so you should know soon enough if you're doing this right.  

 

Looking forward to hearing some updates!  

Edited by synesthesia, 25 August 2014 - 04:28 AM.

[michael55m]

I am of the opinion that human beings have evolved the ability to combat free radical damages. External supplementation of "pure" anti-oxidants in large doses might impair body's intrinsic ability of defense.  

Hormesis is the key. It strengthens our natural defense system. CR, fasting, exercise, vegetables (low level phytotoxin), even a small glass of red wine everyday are all relevant to hormesis.

No pain no gain also applies to longevity.

[Dorian Grey]

Hormesis appears to work quite well on its own for many years of an average, well nourished human's life...  

 

Problem is, evolution only programmed us to live long enough to reproduce and raise our offspring to a self sustaining age.  Once this occurs, nature allows us to decline and die.  Science seems to indicate this process involves a breakdown of hormesis, largely involved with the failure of normal antioxidant function.  

 

What to do?  What to do!  I don't know...  Perhaps supplement antioxidants?  Control over-mineralization?  

[APBT]

Here’s the full text of the study referenced in the article posted by the OP: 

The Intrinsic Apoptosis Pathway Mediates the Pro-Longevity Response to Mitochondrial ROS in C. elegans

[niner]

Once again, Hekimi's grandstanding comes to the fore.  He runs an experiment in worms, and right in the abstract they point out how the ROS sensing pathway is different in vertebrates, but suddenly, the dude has "overthrown" this long standing, erroneous theory.  He's the next Copernicus!   Right.

 

Radical oxidants that could be tried:  Hydrogen Peroxide, Carbon Tetrachloride.  (Sarcasm alert:  These are toxic.)   Yeah, I know, there are people on the Internet who swear by hydrogen peroxide, at least the ones that are still alive.  Dead men tell no tales, and file no adverse event reports.

[YOLF]

Rain water has small amounts of hydrogen peroxide that is made in the upper atmosphere in it. People around the world drink it frequently and it is known to be better for plants... maybe small doses assist hormesis?

[michael55m]

Hormesis appears to work quite well on its own for many years of an average, well nourished human's life...  

 

Problem is, evolution only programmed us to live long enough to reproduce and raise our offspring to a self sustaining age.  Once this occurs, nature allows us to decline and die.  Science seems to indicate this process involves a breakdown of hormesis, largely involved with the failure of normal antioxidant function.  

 

What to do?  What to do!  I don't know...  Perhaps supplement antioxidants?  Control over-mineralization?  

 

That's why I choose to go abstinence. Sperm containing spermidine and other good stuff essential for life can be re-absorbed by our body if not ejaculated out. Not sure how much abstinence can contribute to longevity though.

[TyroneGenade]

I don't know if you read the actual paper but they are not saying that free radicals are good for you, only that if you don't have the correct free radical species, in the right amounts, then apoptosis won't happen. Apoptosis of itself isn't a good thing either... It has to be apoptosis of damaged tissue (like neoplastic---tumor--cells). There is now lots of evidence that elevated levels of free radicals extend lifespan but the animals still die. The mouse study were GPx was knocked down (Reduction in Glutathione Peroxidase 4 Increases Life Span Through Increased Sensitivity to Apoptosis) the mice still died (of acidophilic macrophage pneumonia), they just didn't die of cancer (hooray!). 

 

If you want to get something that kills dysfunctional cells, then you can try resveratrol. It causes malfunctioning neurons to apoptose (and probably other malfunctioning cells as well). Read Liu, Dong, et al. "Nicotinamide prevents NAD+ depletion and protects neurons against excitotoxicity and cerebral ischemia: NAD+ consumption by SIRT1 may endanger energetically compromised neurons." Neuromolecular medicine 11.1 (2009): 28-42. But here, again, if you are killing neurons faster than they can be replaced you will eventually run out of cells (like those mice).

[krillin]

That's why I choose to go abstinence. Sperm containing spermidine and other good stuff essential for life can be re-absorbed by our body if not ejaculated out. Not sure how much abstinence can contribute to longevity though.

 

 

21 or more ejaculations per month looks protective against prostate cancer. PMID: 15069045

 

[michael55m]

Thanks. I'm fully aware of this issue. It's off topic so I am not going to go into details but I believe that the scientific evidence I've gathered is sufficient to prove there is an inverse relationship between ejaculation frequency and mean life span.  

 

 

That's why I choose to go abstinence. Sperm containing spermidine and other good stuff essential for life can be re-absorbed by our body if not ejaculated out. Not sure how much abstinence can contribute to longevity though.

 

 

21 or more ejaculations per month looks protective against prostate cancer. PMID: 15069045

 

 

[timar]

Thanks. I'm fully aware of this issue. It's off topic so I am not going to go into details but I believe that the scientific evidence I've gathered is sufficient to prove there is an inverse relationship between ejaculation frequency and mean life span. 

 

Avoiding the loss of essence (= spermidine) is a good start, but you should also strictly avoid fluoridated water and drink rainwater instead, mixed with pure alcohol. The alcohol and the hydrogen peroxide from the rainwater - as noted by cryonicsculture - will assist hormesis. You can further augment this effect by constantly puffing on a cigar, which is a great ROS supplement. General Jack D. Ripper knew all of that 50 years ago:

 

 

But tell me how exactly did you gather you evidence? Have you done some experiments with nematodes you kept from ejaculating?

Edited by timar, 27 August 2014 - 08:43 AM.

[krillin]

 

Thanks. I'm fully aware of this issue. It's off topic so I am not going to go into details but I believe that the scientific evidence I've gathered is sufficient to prove there is an inverse relationship between ejaculation frequency and mean life span.  

 

 

That's why I choose to go abstinence. Sperm containing spermidine and other good stuff essential for life can be re-absorbed by our body if not ejaculated out. Not sure how much abstinence can contribute to longevity though.

 

 

21 or more ejaculations per month looks protective against prostate cancer. PMID: 15069045

 

 

Read the section Sexual activity: promoter of good health or disease risk factor?. All the studies cited point in the opposite direction from your theory.

 

[michael55m]

Frankly speaking, I've done extensive research on this. (I've read two studies you cited years ago.)

As a matter of fact, lots of published papers point out reproduction activities shortens lifespan in animal trials.

 

For humans:

The reason why sexual activity may decrease cardiovascular risk is mainly because of the exercise.  No need to have sex, just exercise then. 

In terms of prostate cancer risk, several studies have shown that having many lifetime sexual partners or starting sexual activity early in life substantially increases the risk of prostate cancer.

Some studies indicate starting sexual activity early in life shortens human lifespan. Other papers prove that male sex hormone is to blame.

Also, there are several papers indicating castrated male lived way longer than the uncastrated, and other studies saying ligated male lived longer than the unligated. 

 

I myself adopt sexual abstinence for years and I feel healthier and happier. No dating and mating no family burden frees me huge amount of time to do valuable things. Now I have my own company. The pleasure I get from fulfilling work and contributing to our society far outweigh personal sensory enjoyment I had during my puberty. 

Sorry I don't have time to find links to those studies nor am I willing to argue with anyone. I respect that people have different life choices.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks. I'm fully aware of this issue. It's off topic so I am not going to go into details but I believe that the scientific evidence I've gathered is sufficient to prove there is an inverse relationship between ejaculation frequency and mean life span.  

 

 

That's why I choose to go abstinence. Sperm containing spermidine and other good stuff essential for life can be re-absorbed by our body if not ejaculated out. Not sure how much abstinence can contribute to longevity though.

 

 

21 or more ejaculations per month looks protective against prostate cancer. PMID: 15069045

 

 

Read the section Sexual activity: promoter of good health or disease risk factor?. All the studies cited point in the opposite direction from your theory.

 

 

 

[krillin]

 

Frankly speaking, I've done extensive research on this. (I've read two studies you cited years ago.)

As a matter of fact, lots of published papers point out reproduction activities shortens lifespan in animal trials.

 

For humans:

The reason why sexual activity may decrease cardiovascular risk is mainly because of the exercise.  No need to have sex, just exercise then. 

In terms of prostate cancer risk, several studies have shown that having many lifetime sexual partners or starting sexual activity early in life substantially increases the risk of prostate cancer.

Some studies indicate starting sexual activity early in life shortens human lifespan. Other papers prove that male sex hormone is to blame.

Also, there are several papers indicating castrated male lived way longer than the uncastrated, and other studies saying ligated male lived longer than the unligated. 

 

I myself adopt sexual abstinence for years and I feel healthier and happier. No dating and mating no family burden frees me huge amount of time to do valuable things. Now I have my own company. The pleasure I get from fulfilling work and contributing to our society far outweigh personal sensory enjoyment I had during my puberty. 

Sorry I don't have time to find links to those studies nor am I willing to argue with anyone. I respect that people have different life choices.

 

Average BMI was practically the same for all frequencies of orgasm, so extra sex probably didn't burn a significant amount of extra calories. You could argue a social class effect for the low frequency people, but the mid frequency group appears to be the same social class mix as the high frequency group. So what you're now arguing is that the trivial energy expenditure of sex is able to confer a benefit that swamps the theoretical detrimental effects of orgasming. So by abstaining, you would be slightly tweaking your lifespan if your theory is correct. But if you're wrong, you're losing a lot of lifespan.

 

Multiple partners increases the risk of STDs, so it's not the sex itself that increases prostate cancer risk.

 

Regarding your unwillingness to support your theory with evidence, why would you want to join a group and then choose not to conform to its norms?