15 replies to this topic

[Now]

I'm wondering what is the current consensus is regarding N-Acetylcysteine (NAC). There are clear benefits (most notably the increase in glutathione concentrations), but I have a hard time interpreting the possible adverse effects. I'm not so worried about the pulmonary hypertension (PH) link since it's a mice study with a really high dose (equivalent of about 20 grams/day).

 

But I'm not knowledgeable enough to interpret the antioxidant vs reactive oxygen species (ROS) discussion. It's probably dependent on the individual (levels of "oxidative stress") and dose, but can anyone tell me more about this? Could a 600 mg dose (daily) be enough to turn the tide and make NAC and/or other antioxidants detrimental to your health?

 

Thanks!

Edited by Now, 07 May 2015 - 02:10 PM.

[Kalliste]

I've gotten a bad impression of NAC. My creeping suspicion is that it will disturb the mitochondrial bioenergetics and do more harm than good. Why not try Melatonin, MitoQ or C60?

[Now]

I've gotten a bad impression of NAC. My creeping suspicion is that it will disturb the mitochondrial bioenergetics and do more harm than good. Why not try Melatonin, MitoQ or C60?

 
Cosmicalstorm, thanks for your reply .
 
The main reason why I'm so interested in NAC is that I'm diagnosed with Asperger syndrome and there is some evidence that NAC may help with autism and OCD.
 

N-acetylcysteine is thought to benefit symptoms of autism in part due to possibly having an antioxidant effect, but it is also thought to reduce excessive glutamate levels in the brain; both the oxidation and glutamate are abnormally elevated in persons with autism relative to normal controls.

→ source (external link)

It looks like that it's not just the "antioxidant effect" that's responsible for the effect (in OCD):
 

Positive effects have been noted in animal models with infusions of N-acetylcysteine, and these benefits do not appear to be replicated by another reference antioxidant

→ source (external link)

I'm not really familiar with MitoQ or C60, but I will look into them. Thank you for the suggestions.

[Kalliste]

They used Vitamin E as a reference in that study. It does not come close to some of the nano-antioxidants that have been looked at during the past decade. Vitamin E, at least in some of it's common supplemental shapes, has very poor ADME. My bet is it's probably better if taken with or eaten from foods rich in it. But even then it will probably be limited by the "one antiradical per free radical" and the problem that it might only deal with free radicals that are secondary or tertiary to the most dangerous free radicals like superoxide.

 

Personally I've been using MitoQ and C60-OO for a year. Both make me feel great, or they give me great placebo. Who knows

 

Anyway there are tons of antioxidants more effective than Vit E. I'm weirded out that even many academic papers, like the one you linked to, seems to have been written by people who have never heard about this stuff.

Off the top of my head there is C60-olive oil, Carboxyfullerenes and other carbon based nanoparticles that look really good, some claim they go back to old Shungite medicine. They have had very nice antioxidant effects in studies.

Antipodean reserach center in NZ is looking at MitoQ, also did some studies on MitoE (vitamin E with increased effects, even MitoE was not as good as MitoQ).

There are nanojewels; diamond, titanium, platinum, silver and gold nanoparticles with various surface modification.

There is the Skulachevs in Russia looking at Plastoquinone SkQ1 which is looking very positive if you google it.

There is the less safetytested Tiron which has prevented 100 % UV damage in one paper.

You can get Ergothionone from some mushrooms, which has its own human-cellular transport network.

I'm currently reading about surfacemodified Nanoceria. I've seen some very interesting work on nanoversions of silica, massive increases in bone strength and some ROS modifying properties.

Some use metallic nanotubes to decouple mitochondria. Some Annelids had their lives extended by 150 % with Hydroxyalamine IAC.

There are also some liposomal and nanversions of more commonly known substances like Ascorbate, Quercetin, Turmeric/Curcumin, ECEG, Isithiocyanate, Genistein etc.

 

 

Edited by Cosmicalstorm, 07 May 2015 - 06:09 PM.

[Fenix_]

The part about dissolving mucous is what got me to stop taking NAC. It is important to have a bit of mucous in the airways. The reason I had bought NAC in the first place was for liver repair but upon further research I found better substances for that purpose (such as milk thistle, curcumin).

Edited by Fenix_, 07 May 2015 - 07:24 PM.

[pamojja]

The part about dissolving mucous is what got me to stop taking NAC.

 

Been taking in avg. about 600 mg NAC for 6 years and didn't mentioned any dissolving at all. At what doses and how frequent is that effect?
 

[pamojja]

 

I'm not so worried about the pulmonary hypertension (PH) link since it's a mice study with a really high dose (equivalent of about 20 grams/day).

 

http://examine.com/s...eine#summary8-3 seems to have calculated a much lower equivalent dose (3 x 600 mg/d).

[Now]

They used Vitamin E as a reference in that study. It does not come close to some of the nano-antioxidants that have been looked at during the past decade. Vitamin E, at least in some of it's common supplemental shapes, has very poor ADME. My bet is it's probably better if taken with or eaten from foods rich in it. But even then it will probably be limited by the "one antiradical per free radical" and the problem that it might only deal with free radicals that are secondary or tertiary to the most dangerous free radicals like superoxide.
 
Personally I've been using MitoQ and C60-OO for a year. Both make me feel great, or they give me great placebo. Who knows
 
Anyway there are tons of antioxidants more effective than Vit E. I'm weirded out that even many academic papers, like the one you linked to, seems to have been written by people who have never heard about this stuff.
Off the top of my head there is C60-olive oil, Carboxyfullerenes and other carbon based nanoparticles that look really good, some claim they go back to old Shungite medicine. They have had very nice antioxidant effects in studies.
Antipodean reserach center in NZ is looking at MitoQ, also did some studies on MitoE (vitamin E with increased effects, even MitoE was not as good as MitoQ).
There are nanojewels; diamond, titanium, platinum, silver and gold nanoparticles with various surface modification.
There is the Skulachevs in Russia looking at Plastoquinone SkQ1 which is looking very positive if you google it.
There is the less safetytested Tiron which has prevented 100 % UV damage in one paper.
You can get Ergothionone from some mushrooms, which has its own human-cellular transport network.
I'm currently reading about surfacemodified Nanoceria. I've seen some very interesting work on nanoversions of silica, massive increases in bone strength and some ROS modifying properties.
Some use metallic nanotubes to decouple mitochondria. Some Annelids had their lives extended by 150 % with Hydroxyalamine IAC.
There are also some liposomal and nanversions of more commonly known substances like Ascorbate, Quercetin, Turmeric/Curcumin, ECEG, Isithiocyanate, Genistein etc.

 
Thanks again for your time and thorough reply, I really appreciate it. I have to admit that I haven't read everything on MitoQ, C60 and the other substances (yet), but I think that they're a little bit too ''experimental'' for me. Maybe I'm too conservative when it comes to supplements, but I prefer a relative well-researched substance with known possible risks to a relative new substance without known possible risks or adverse effects. The effects of NAC are probably also not entirely because of its antioxidant (glutathione raising) effect, but it also appears to have an effect on glutaminergic transmission. But again, I haven't looked into your suggestions (and NAC) enough at this moment to conclude anything. Thanks again.

The part about dissolving mucous is what got me to stop taking NAC. It is important to have a bit of mucous in the airways. The reason I had bought NAC in the first place was for liver repair but upon further research I found better substances for that purpose (such as milk thistle, curcumin).

 
Thanks for your reply. I haven't noticed any difference or problems in (the amount of) mucus myself, but it's indeed sold here as a cough/mucus medicine. I know that mucus has an important function, I'm just not sure what the effect of NAC is when you don't have excessive or thick mucus production. It's definitely something to take into account.
 

 

I'm not so worried about the pulmonary hypertension (PH) link since it's a mice study with a really high dose (equivalent of about 20 grams/day).

 
http://examine.com/s...eine#summary8-3 seems to have calculated a much lower equivalent dose (3 x 600 mg/d).

 

 
Thanks for sharing this finding. I don't know who is right here, but 20 g vs. 1.8 g per day is a big difference. Maybe I should lower my dose to 200/400 mg daily or start taking (cysteine rich) whey protein instead, because whey protein appears to increase GSH too.
 
By the way, thanks for voting on the poll everyone.

Edited by Now, 09 May 2015 - 05:27 PM.

[Ark]

I take 1800mg of NAC once daily, I tried a few different protocols for NAC over the years but this is the one that has worked the best for me.

[Kalliste]

I agree that C60 is a bit too experimental. But MitoQ has a pretty good profile, it is in human trials right now and has been extensively tested on various animals with a lack of toxicity as far as I know. I suspect Vitamin C is more dangerous in some respects. (interference with ROS-pathways, obstruction of hormesis)

[Ark]

I agree that C60 is a bit too experimental. But MitoQ has a pretty good profile, it is in human trials right now and has been extensively tested on various animals with a lack of toxicity as far as I know. I suspect Vitamin C is more dangerous in some respects. (interference with ROS-pathways, obstruction of hormesis)

C60, isn't experimental according to some Longecity members, who also think it's ethical to give blood while on it.

[aribadabar]

 

C60, isn't experimental according to some Longecity members, who also think it's ethical to give blood while on it.

 

I know it's a bit off-topic and not sure if sarcastic but yes, I do think it is ethical to donate blood irrespective of C60 intake.

Usually people who need a blood transfusion are not that picky and don't mind having their lives saved even with C60-laden blood. Worst case scenario, C60 will be mostly gone from their bodies within a month or two if anecdotes reported here are any guide.

[Peak Noots]

Hospitals still use to for Tylenol overdose. It is an anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory agent. It also works as a glutamate antagonist and may help protect against glutamate excitotoxitiy.

[Duchykins]

Hospitals still use to for Tylenol overdose. It is an anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory agent. It also works as a glutamate antagonist and may help protect against glutamate excitotoxitiy.

 

 

They do use NAC, that is true, because it can save a life in an emergency.  That doesn't mean it doesn't have side-effects that make it inappropriate for long-term use in the average healthy person.   Hospitals also see quite a few nonallergic histamine reactions to NAC treatment.   NAC indirectly causes histamine release.

Edited by Duchykins, 11 July 2015 - 07:58 PM.

[Kalliste]

_{Very relevant}

_{http://www.longecity...oke-prone-rats/}

Edited by Cosmicalstorm, 13 August 2015 - 09:06 AM.

[BasicBiO]

The part about dissolving mucous is what got me to stop taking NAC. It is important to have a bit of mucous in the airways. The reason I had bought NAC in the first place was for liver repair but upon further research I found better substances for that purpose (such as milk thistle, curcumin).

 

It doesn't so much "dissolve mucous" in the sense that you'd have less of it, rather it makes it more viscous or runny. This is advantageous when one is dealing with respiratory issues or infections.