• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 8 votes

New Rapamycin Study- up to 60% increase in mouse lifespan- Anyone Experimenting With This?

rapamycin

  • Please log in to reply
955 replies to this topic

#451 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,433 posts
  • 451

Posted 07 August 2017 - 06:31 AM

Michael, here's the study I think is being referenced:
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/26463117
 
 

ou think a vitamin will not help and useless while a big pharma drug with tons of side effects can.


Back to the lies. No such "tons of side effects" at 6mg per week.

 
That may be true (though I'd like to know your specific source on it), but that dose is unlikely to have an effect. The standard dose in the rodent studies (14 ppm diet/2.24 mg/kg mouse) leads to serum levels of ≈10-20 ng/mL in young adult animals and as much as 60-70 ng/mL in old animals: lower doses are ineffective in males,  and higher doses work better in both genders. The blood levels in the intermittent-dosing pilot study are similar (2 mg/kg administered by i.p. injection every 5 days) are quite high for the first day (40 ng/mL), and trough down at a few ng/mL by the end of the week.
 
These levels are similar to those targeted clinically in renal transplant patients, taking a 6 mg/day loading dose and a ≈2 mg/day maintenance dose. At such doses, the adverse effects are quite substantial.



#452 MikeDC

  • Guest
  • 1,570 posts
  • -457
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 07 August 2017 - 09:30 AM

Rapamycin have been used extensively by transplant recepients, all we hear are side effects. Have you heard anyone saying they are getting younger after taking Rapamycin? Or live longer?
What is the change of cholesterol and triglycerides and kidney functions after taking Rapamycin?
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Disagree x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#453 MikeDC

  • Guest
  • 1,570 posts
  • -457
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 07 August 2017 - 09:35 AM

https://www.ncbi.nlm...cin cholesterol
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Disagree x 1

#454 MikeDC

  • Guest
  • 1,570 posts
  • -457
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 07 August 2017 - 12:01 PM

http://reference.med...olimus-343206#4

Why would anyone take it willingly if not for the transplant?
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#455 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,293 posts
  • 1,792
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 07 August 2017 - 04:20 PM

 

 

No such "tons of side effects" at 6mg per week.

That may be true (though I'd like to know your specific source on it), but that dose is unlikely to have an effect.
Michael, here's the study I think is being referenced:
https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/26463117

 
Right. To be clear, that's the same pilot study of intermittent rapamycin that I discussed above: I linked the paper on the LS study, and this is a paper on glucose tolerance, but it's two different papers reporting results from the same actual study. Indeed, the intermittent-dosing blood level data I discussed above comes from the report that you link here (see Figure 1B in the full text).

As I said, the very high initial spike of rapa achieved in this suggests that 6 mg rapa/week is not going to be enough to mimic the effects on aging observed in the pilot study (assuming that they're eventually confirmed in a larger study). And on the other hand, it's premature to jump from the lack of harm seen in this study based on a small number of parameters to the assertion that there will be no side-effects in humans, since we know there are side-effects in humans at blood levels only 1/3 to half of what is present at least part of the time in the mouse studies.
 

Rapamycin have been used extensively by transplant recepients, all we hear are side effects. Have you heard anyone saying they are getting younger after taking Rapamycin? Or live longer?

 
Remember, these are transplant patients: ipso facto, their life expectancy is already shorter than the general population. Rapa-treated transplant patients of course live longer than transplant patients with no immunosuppression, but you can't expect to see them living longer lives than the rest of us after having already suffered whatever disease or trauma that led to them losing a kidney, and then undergoing major surgery to replace it and living thereafter under immunosuppression with a foreign organ.


Edited by Michael, 07 August 2017 - 04:20 PM.

  • Good Point x 1

#456 MikeDC

  • Guest
  • 1,570 posts
  • -457
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 07 August 2017 - 04:32 PM

That is not a valid argument. They have a younger kidney. The rejection is suppressed by Rapamycin. So overall they are better off. The big anti aging effects from Rapamycin should make them live longer and better than people who still has the old kidney. How is it different than a regular old person taking Rapamycin?
  • Ill informed x 5
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1

#457 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,433 posts
  • 451

Posted 07 August 2017 - 07:22 PM

So is your argument that:

1) We don't know if rapamycin is safe even with intermittent dosing and
2) Even if it is safe, we don't know if the blood levels are high enough long enough to do anything significant so
3) People shouldn't take rapamycin for anti-aging purposes

?


Right. To be clear, that's the same pilot study of intermittent rapamycin that I discussed above: I linked the paper on the LS study, and this is a paper on glucose tolerance, but it's two different papers reporting results from the same actual study. Indeed, the intermittent-dosing blood level data I discussed above comes from the report that you link here (see Figure 1B in the full text).

As I said, the very high initial spike of rapa achieved in this suggests that 6 mg rapa/week is not going to be enough to mimic the effects on aging observed in the pilot study (assuming that they're eventually confirmed in a larger study). And on the other hand, it's premature to jump from the lack of harm seen in this study based on a small number of parameters to the assertion that there will be no side-effects in humans, since we know there are side-effects in humans at blood levels only 1/3 to half of what is present at least part of the time in the mouse studies.



#458 MikeDC

  • Guest
  • 1,570 posts
  • -457
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 07 August 2017 - 08:27 PM

When you don't have side effect, you don't have enough dose for anti aging either. Bummer.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.../?i=1&from=nad
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • unsure x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Ill informed x 1

#459 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,293 posts
  • 1,792
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 07 August 2017 - 10:58 PM

 

the very high initial spike of rapa achieved in this [pilot study of intermittent rapamycinFigure 1B in the full text of its companion paper] suggests that 6 mg rapa/week is not going to be enough to mimic the effects on aging ... And on the other hand, it's premature to jump from the lack of harm seen in this study based on a small number of parameters to the assertion that there will be no side-effects in humans, since we know there are side-effects in humans at blood levels only 1/3 to half of what is present at least part of the time in the mouse studies.

So is your argument that:

1) We don't know if rapamycin is safe even with intermittent dosing and
2) Even if it is safe, we don't know if the blood levels are high enough long enough to do anything significant [at 6 mg/wk] so
3) People shouldn't take rapamycin for anti-aging purposes?

I am certainly arguing #2, and I'm somewhat arguing #1 (though more that the kinds of doses that seem more likely to be effective are unlikely to be risk-free) — and, generally, that it's unreasonable to make statements as confident to the contrary on these points as are being voiced here.

 

I'm not at all arguing #3, though I'm also certainly not encouraging it. The main thing is that people should make a fully-informed decision, and the notion that 6 mg weekly is very likely to work and that it is free of side-effects are not premises informed by the evidence.

 

One more thing. Deciding in advance on an arbitrary (or even extrapolated) dose of rapa is not a sensible protocol, granted the extremely wide inter- and intraindividual variability in rapa's pharmacokinetics: that's why, unlike most drugs, rapa concentrations in patients' blood are actively tracked, and doses adjusted to reach target concentrations. If you're going to do this, you should select target blood levels and invest in therapeutic drug monitoring, along with other standard metabolic and safety bloodwork, rather than just ordering the pills from some offshore pharmacy and hope.


  • Informative x 2

#460 RWhigham

  • Member
  • 509 posts
  • 487
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 08 August 2017 - 12:36 AM

This is a pretty big incentive:   National Institute of Aging article  "Figure 2 shows survival curves of male and female mice that received both Met (1000 ppm) and Rapa (14 ppm) (Met/Rapa) from 9 months of age. As shown in Table 1, this combination led to a 23% increase in survival compared with controls in both sexes." 


Edited by RWhigham, 08 August 2017 - 12:38 AM.

  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#461 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,293 posts
  • 1,792
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 08 August 2017 - 01:02 AM

This is a pretty big incentive:   National Institute of Aging article  "Figure 2 shows survival curves of male and female mice that received both Met (1000 ppm) and Rapa (14 ppm) (Met/Rapa) from 9 months of age. As shown in Table 1, this combination led to a 23% increase in survival compared with controls in both sexes." 

 

I cited that report in a previous response to you, as did Mike DC and one other. It's definitely promising, but be careful not to overplay the result: the 23% increase was in median LS. The effect on maximum LS was significantly smaller: 10% in males and 17% in females (see Table 1, and note the shape of the latter part of the two genders' survival curves, which on their face tell you it's not a 23% increase in max LS).



#462 Rick Flair

  • Guest
  • 21 posts
  • 12
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 08 August 2017 - 11:59 AM

I have to call out the moderators on this site for being weak and ineffective. This was a great thread with people sharing experiences and ideas. But they let MikeDC hijack the thing.
  • Agree x 4
  • Good Point x 4
  • Well Written x 1

#463 tintinet

  • Guest
  • 1,972 posts
  • 503
  • Location:ME

Posted 08 August 2017 - 09:35 PM

Whilst I certainly don't agree with everything MikeDC has posted, I value free speech, and I don't think he's posted anything invoking censorship.
  • Disagree x 4
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • dislike x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#464 RWhigham

  • Member
  • 509 posts
  • 487
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 09 August 2017 - 04:00 AM

 

This is a pretty big incentive:   National Institute of Aging article  "Figure 2 shows survival curves of male and female mice that received both Met (1000 ppm) and Rapa (14 ppm) (Met/Rapa) from 9 months of age. As shown in Table 1, this combination led to a 23% increase in survival compared with controls in both sexes." 

 

I cited that report in a previous response to you, as did Mike DC and one other. It's definitely promising, but be careful not to overplay the result: the 23% increase was in median LS. The effect on maximum LS was significantly smaller: 10% in males and 17% in females (see Table 1, and note the shape of the latter part of the two genders' survival curves, which on their face tell you it's not a 23% increase in max LS).

 

 

Yeah, it's too bad Met+Rap doesn't change maximum lifespan much, and won't help me live longer than the oldest humans. I'll have to be content with trying to increase my median lifespan from 85 years to about 105 years  (+23%).


  • Cheerful x 3
  • Good Point x 2
  • like x 1

#465 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 09 August 2017 - 04:35 AM

Whilst I certainly don't agree with everything MikeDC has posted, I value free speech, and I don't think he's posted anything invoking censorship.

 

He was asked not to shill NR et al. in the discussion on Rapamycin,  Not for the first time.  His second warning triggered an automatic software imposed ban on posting for 30 days, which I did not expect.  I even moved some of the off-topic posts to another  topic on comparing NR, NMR et al. to Rapamycin where it would have been appropriate.  When his punishment expires, I hope he is content to post there.  A third warning might trigger a lifetime ban, if that's the automatic third warning punishment. 


  • like x 5
  • Agree x 3

#466 Captain Obvious

  • Guest
  • 82 posts
  • 28
  • Location:Finland
  • NO

Posted 09 August 2017 - 11:02 AM

That is not a valid argument. They have a younger kidney. The rejection is suppressed by Rapamycin. So overall they are better off. The big anti aging effects from Rapamycin should make them live longer and better than people who still has the old kidney. How is it different than a regular old person taking Rapamycin?

 

Getting an organ transplant isn't exactly like changing a hard drive in your computer, you know. Not yet, at least.


  • Good Point x 2
  • Cheerful x 1

#467 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,293 posts
  • 1,792
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 10 August 2017 - 03:33 AM

 

 

This is a pretty big incentive:   National Institute of Aging article  "Figure 2 shows survival curves of male and female mice that received both Met (1000 ppm) and Rapa (14 ppm) (Met/Rapa) from 9 months of age. As shown in Table 1, this combination led to a 23% increase in survival compared with controls in both sexes." 

It's definitely promising, but be careful not to overplay the result: the 23% increase was in median LS. The effect on maximum LS was significantly smaller: 10% in males and 17% in females (see Table 1, and note the shape of the latter part of the two genders' survival curves, which on their face tell you it's not a 23% increase in max LS).

 

Yeah, it's too bad Met+Rap doesn't change maximum lifespan much, and won't help me live longer than the oldest humans. I'll have to be content with trying to increase my median lifespan from 85 years to about 105 years  (+23%).

 

There's a couple of flaws in this extrapolation. First, as a minor point:the median age at death for white male Americans (such as yourself (?)) is 79, not 85. Second, and more importantly, when median LS increases more than max, it's a good guess that most of the shift is due to averting early mortality: this is borne out by the shape of the survival curves. Since they treated the mice from age 9 months onward — say, from one's early thirties until 50% of the population dies — they had a lot more opportunity to avert those early deaths than a person with features similar to your own is likely to have ;) .

 

Third, and most broadly, you can't really extrapolate from effects on mean or median survivorship in mouse lifespan studies to humans. Unlike mice, we already avoid a lot of premature mortality due to medicine, from vaccines (which also impact late-life mortality by reducing lifelong inflammatory burden) to more obviously late-life medical interventions. You therefore have to seriously discount the effects of any intervention that disproportionately affects mean LS or median age at death in mice, though less so in a case of actually repairing aging damage SENS style than one affecting environmental or metabolic risk factors driving "premature" disease (obesity, inflammation, cardiovascular risk factors, environmental toxins, etc). By contrast, effects on maximum lifespan (ie, due more purely to aging) are expected to be more robust, since we don't have any equivalent prior victories: current medicine does very little about aging, except indirectly.
 


  • Well Written x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

#468 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 10 August 2017 - 03:55 AM

The placebo effect is such a wonderful thing.  The rapamycin protocol would certainly induce this, on top of whatever else it does or does not do for us.


  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#469 RWhigham

  • Member
  • 509 posts
  • 487
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 10 August 2017 - 04:28 PM

  • Increasing maximum lifespan does not rule out having a long slow decay
  • Push out the median lifespan enough and you "square the box".-- healthy to the end.

Edited by RWhigham, 10 August 2017 - 04:30 PM.

  • Agree x 2

#470 RWhigham

  • Member
  • 509 posts
  • 487
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 10 August 2017 - 05:43 PM

In this study Intermittent Administration of Rapamycin Extends the Life Span of Female C57BL/6J Mice  the maximum lifespan of the mice was increased by 17.8%.  As Blagosklonny and Dr Green have both explained, intermittent dosing is much preferred for lifespan extension purposes.


Edited by RWhigham, 10 August 2017 - 05:44 PM.

  • Agree x 2

#471 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,293 posts
  • 1,792
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 10 August 2017 - 11:41 PM

In this study Intermittent Administration of Rapamycin Extends the Life Span of Female C57BL/6J Mice the maximum lifespan of the mice was increased by 17.8%.


... and 10% in males — as I said in my post ;) . My point was simply that it's (unintentionally) misleading to say that it increased "lifespan" by 23% (as you'd originally said), when it actually increased median age at death by 23%: the increase in max LS was significantly smaller, particularly in males (which is in line with previous reports).
 

As  Blagosklonny and Dr Green have both explained, intermittent dosing is much preferred for lifespan extension purposes.

 
That's certainly what they argue, based on the pilot study reported in these two papers (same study, separate paper, looking at different outcomes —as I discussed above (and following posts in my exchange with Smithx); they also reference some questionable evidence using short-lived and/or mutant mice, such as this. This line of evidence does broadly tend to support that argument, but this is only a pilot study, as I explained previously: to say it with any confidence, even in mice, it will need repeated in a larger study (as Dr. Lamming himself acknowledges) and with a more convincingly healthy control group.
 

Increasing maximum lifespan does not rule out having a long slow decay

Push out the median lifespan enough and you "square the box".-- healthy to the end.


First, to be clear, no one is arguing that it's attractive to have an agent that increases max with no effect on median: that suggests a very stressful and dangerous intervention that happens to also retard aging. However, you also don't want to take too seriously effects on rodent median age at death, and particularly not in this study, for reasons given.

You are, however, not thinking clearly in asserting that if you "Push out the median lifespan enough and you "square the box"-- healthy to the end." Again, increasing median age at death without a concomitant increase in maximum LS indicates you've largely prevented premature deaths, without affecting underlying aging processes. (Heck, people who die very prematurely are often ostensibly pretty "healthy", but only because they are disproportionately vulnerable to some singular pathology and haven't yet suffered with the degenerative aging process (viz. the huge epidemic of seemingly-healthy 40-60-year-olds who were dropping dead of heart disease back from WWII through the early 70s. As we made progress against CVD in the ensuing decades — by lowering saturated and trans-fatty acid intake, lowered smoking rates, introduced blood pressure meds and then statins, and to a small extent interventional cardiology — we prevented a lot of those premature deaths, increasing median age at death — but people who would have died largely "healthy" in middle age instead wound up less healthy when they died decades later. That beats the alternative, but it illustrates the point: reducing premature mortality alone does not leave one "healthy to the end").

Where you really see a shortened period of age-related morbidity is exactly with interventions that actually slow aging, resulting in median and maximum lifespan increasing concert, whether it's CR,(1) or IGF-1 mutations,(2-4) or human centenarians(5) (especially genetic centenarians)— or, yes, rapamycin.


References
1. Shimokawa I, Higami Y, Hubbard GB, McMahan CA, Masoro EJ, Yu BP. Diet and the suitability of the male Fischer 344 rat as a model for aging research. J Gerontol. 1993 Jan;48(1):B27-32. PubMed PMID: 8418135.
"morphologic lesions indicating the cause of death were not found in 25% or more of the rats in Groups B [CR with casein as the protein source] and S [CR with soy as the protein]; such was the case for less than 8% of the rats in Groups A [AL casein] and L [AL lactalbumin]. … Indeed, most striking is the finding that at the time of spontaneous death, 22 of the 79 Groups B and S rats showed an absence of any morphologic lesions likely to play a causal role in the death of the rat, while such was the case in only 5 of the 80 rats in Groups A and L. Moreover, in the rats of Groups B and S, 16 of the 22 deaths without significant morphologic lesions occurred at advanced ages (> 30 months) while in the rats of Groups A and L, three of the five occurred at young ages (< 24 months)." (1)
 
2: Ikeno Y, Bronson RT, Hubbard GB, Lee S, Bartke A. Delayed occurrence of fatal neoplastic diseases in ames dwarf mice: correlation to extended longevity. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003 Apr;58(4):291-6. PubMed PMID: 12663691.
"Approximately 25% of the dwarf mice died without obvious evidence of lethal pathological changes", vs none of the WT (Table 1)"
 
3: Vergara M, Smith-Wheelock M, Harper JM, Sigler R, Miller RA. Hormone-treated snell dwarf mice regain fertility but remain long lived and disease resistant. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004 Dec;59(12):1244-50. PubMed PMID: 15699523; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2924623.
47% of Snell dwarves vs 7% of controls dying with no obvious pathological cause -- and notably, "there were no obvious differences in lesion frequency attributable to hormone exposure [in dwarves treated or not with GH and thyroxine to restore these hormones to normal levels for the first 11 weeks of life], although small group size precluded detailed analysis of this issue" -- and notably, albeit of no relevance to late-onset intervention, early developmental hormone treatment "increased their weight by approximately 45%, although they remained much smaller than controls ... [and] restored fertility to male dwarf mice ... [but] did not diminish life span or lower the resistance of dwarf mice to cataracts and kidney disease"
 
4: Ikeno Y, Hubbard GB, Lee S, Cortez LA, Lew CM, Webb CR, Berryman DE, List EO, Kopchick JJ, Bartke A. Reduced incidence and delayed occurrence of fatal neoplastic diseases in growth hormone receptor/binding protein knockout mice. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009 May;64(5):522-9. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glp017. Epub 2009 Feb 19. PubMed PMID: 19228785; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2667132.
"Approximately 58% of GHR/BP KO mice died from nonneoplastic lesions, compared with approximately 17% for the WT littermates, mainly due to the high incidence of death cases in GHR/BP KO mice (approximately 47%) with no obvious evidence of lethal pathological changes."
 
5: Paul Gellert, PhD Petra von Berenberg, PhD MD MPH Monika Oedekoven Maria Klemt Christine Zwillich Stefan Hörter, PhD Adelheid Kuhlmey, PhD Dagmar Dräger, PhD Centenarians Differ in Their Comorbidity Trends During The 6 Years Before Death Compared to Individuals Who Died in Their 80s or 90s
The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, glx136, Published: 29 June 2017


Edited by Michael, 11 August 2017 - 02:10 AM.

  • Good Point x 1

#472 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,433 posts
  • 451

Posted 11 August 2017 - 01:48 AM

Michael, again interesting information, but not sure what your thesis is.

#473 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,293 posts
  • 1,792
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 11 August 2017 - 02:14 AM

Michael, again interesting information, but not sure what your thesis is.

 

If you mean my post immediately above yours, I don't have a thesis: I was just correcting and clarifying a series of misstatements, premature conclusions, oversimplifications, and misunderstandings in the post to which I was responding.

 

That said, I do see that I didn't spell out one particular section's implications well the first time: see the new material beginning "As we made progress against CVD" etc.



#474 RWhigham

  • Member
  • 509 posts
  • 487
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 11 August 2017 - 04:30 PM

 

 

 Michael:  I don't have a thesis: I was just correcting and clarifying a series of misstatements, premature conclusions, oversimplifications, and misunderstandings in the post to which I was responding. 

The "23% increase" was not my words-- I just quoted the article.  I can't find fault with your rebuttals. However, as someone approaching the "death decade" (80's), the Met+Rap evidence looks good compared to doing nothing.

 

 


Edited by RWhigham, 11 August 2017 - 04:32 PM.

  • Good Point x 3

#475 RWhigham

  • Member
  • 509 posts
  • 487
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 12 August 2017 - 05:31 PM

You are, however, not thinking clearly in asserting that if you "Push out the median lifespan enough and you "square the box"-- healthy to the end." Again, increasing median age at death without a concomitant increase in maximum LS indicates you've largely prevented premature deaths, 

 

Michael, you are right. "Squaring the box" and "healthy to the end" should refer to healthspan (H) vs time, not lifespan (L) vs. time. 

 

As you pointed out reference-5 , centenarians who have exceptionally long lifespans (L) as a rule have exceptionally long health spans (H). Long lifespan L implies long healthspan H.  L implies H.

 

But by the rules of logic it does not follow that H implies L.  It's presumably possible for H to be true without L being true -- like living to an average old age in excellent health, and then declining quickly.

 

Your theory that increasing median lifespan in mice is merely stopping early deaths, and therefore unlikely useful for humans because we've already stopped our early deaths may be plausible, but it's not a universal law.  Median lifespan and healthspan may sometimes be linked.

 

I suspect my posts evoked a strong reaction from you by failing to make it clear that Met + Rap  (intermittent low dose only) is not exactly a magic bullet. It's another tool in the toolbox, along with food, exercise, intermittent fasting, and doing what you can about immune system maintenance, senescent cell elimination, mitochondrial rejuvenation, stem cell preservation, neural biogenesis--and never relegate responsibility for your health to someone else.

 

I always keep in mind that it's easy to do more harm than good. In medical history, there were many attempts to improve healthspan/lifespan that turned out badly. The current obesity epidemic is an example. 


Edited by RWhigham, 12 August 2017 - 05:34 PM.

  • Good Point x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Agree x 1

#476 PAMPAGUY

  • Guest
  • 304 posts
  • 180
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 30 August 2017 - 06:09 AM

A new article about aging. Includes, NAD+, Rapa, Metformin. This reporter knows more than most. Seeing more articles about aging in general. Not specific to Rapa. If this sort of article is not on topic, let me know.
://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/time-to-pop-an-anti-ageing-pill

#477 smithx

  • Guest
  • 1,433 posts
  • 451

Posted 18 October 2017 - 04:16 AM

I ordered some rapamycin from DropshipMD and it just arrived. The brand is "Swiss Garnier" which sounds European but is actually an Indian company with a name they thought sounded good.

I didn't find anything conclusive about how good these were, and wonder if anyone knows? I may just send one for analysis to see what's really in it.

#478 DareDevil

  • Guest
  • 283 posts
  • 83
  • Location:Vermont

Posted 18 October 2017 - 05:12 AM

Hi Smithx,

 

Or you can go the easy route and dose too high?

I found out mine was real. Instead of taking 9mg I took 12mg.

I got a very large and painful canker sore on my tongue.

To me that's as good a confirmation as it gets that it's REAL lol.

 

Cheers,

 

DareDevil


  • Good Point x 1

#479 PAMPAGUY

  • Guest
  • 304 posts
  • 180
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 18 October 2017 - 07:16 AM

Very good point Dare Devil, in my estimation the cancer sore is the very best indicator that your dosing too high.  One good thing about Rapa is once you quit, skip a few days, or drop dose down, all symptoms disappear.



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#480 PAMPAGUY

  • Guest
  • 304 posts
  • 180
  • Location:Spain
  • NO

Posted 18 October 2017 - 07:22 AM

I ordered some rapamycin from DropshipMD and it just arrived. The brand is "Swiss Garnier" which sounds European but is actually an Indian company with a name they thought sounded good.

I didn't find anything conclusive about how good these were, and wonder if anyone knows? I may just send one for analysis to see what's really in

Most Indian Drug companies are very good.  They are the biggest generic drug companies in the world.  Ship billions in drugs yearly.  Most hire FDA inspectors that work for the FDA to control quality.   You have a very good manufacture of the rapa.  Please feel free to do your lab analysis, but I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I have ordered from Dropshipmd.com and have got 2 different manuf.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: rapamycin

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users