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

Photo
- - - - -

Resveratrol-Joint Pain


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#61 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 25 July 2008 - 09:26 PM

Ok, I have mentioned this on another thread but I thought it should have its own. I have been on resveratrol for several months now. Currently I am taking 1.2 grams per day (RevGenics R300 two tabs in the morning, one lunch and one in the afternoon). Recently I have started having joint pain. Enough to start to concern me. The other day my left hip hurt so much that I could barely walk ( this lasted for about an hour.) I am a 41 year old male in good health. Anyone else experienced this? Thanks


You're not alone someone else on the Life extension forums mentioned that they had pain after talking trans res. If Res is at fault perhaps people should consult doctors before they begin using these supplements (as most bottles tell you to do). This is why I only take the well researched Vitamins and Minerals, since there isn't enough studies on these newer supplements when it comes to humans (the only res I get is from red grapes).

Edited by Dmitri, 25 July 2008 - 09:27 PM.


#62 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 26 July 2008 - 04:06 AM

Can you provide a link?

A

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#63 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 26 July 2008 - 04:35 AM

You're not alone someone else on the Life extension forums mentioned that they had pain after talking trans res. If Res is at fault perhaps people should consult doctors before they begin using these supplements (as most bottles tell you to do). This is why I only take the well researched Vitamins and Minerals, since there isn't enough studies on these newer supplements when it comes to humans (the only res I get is from red grapes).

Consult doctors and ask them what? Should I take resveratrol? Doctors are not hugely likely to even know what it is, so they will say "no, you should not take that". If you were to ask the doctor if you had any autoimmune conditions, at least that is something they understand and could tell you something about. These days, resveratrol is starting to be pretty well researched. It is a drug with some significant actions, so I'm not arguing that it should be taken lightly, but it is rapidly developing a track record.

⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#64 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 27 July 2008 - 02:12 PM

You're not alone someone else on the Life extension forums mentioned that they had pain after talking trans res. If Res is at fault perhaps people should consult doctors before they begin using these supplements (as most bottles tell you to do). This is why I only take the well researched Vitamins and Minerals, since there isn't enough studies on these newer supplements when it comes to humans (the only res I get is from red grapes).

Consult doctors and ask them what? Should I take resveratrol? Doctors are not hugely likely to even know what it is, so they will say "no, you should not take that". If you were to ask the doctor if you had any autoimmune conditions, at least that is something they understand and could tell you something about. These days, resveratrol is starting to be pretty well researched. It is a drug with some significant actions, so I'm not arguing that it should be taken lightly, but it is rapidly developing a track record.


Most of the studies are on lower animals or cell cultures and the results have been mixed.

Linus Pauling Institute at Oregon State University

Micronutrient Research for Optimum Health

http://lpi.oregonsta...ls/resveratrol/

Resveratrol

Resveratrol has been found to exert a number of potentially cardioprotective effects in vitro, including inhibition of platelet aggregation (47, 48, 68), promotion of vasodilation by enhancing the production of NO (46, 69) and inhibition of inflammatory enzymes (34, 70, 71). However, the concentrations of resveratrol required to produce these effects are often higher than those that have been measured in human plasma after oral consumption of resveratrol (7). The results of some animal studies suggest that high oral doses of resveratrol could decrease the risk of thrombosis (clot formation) and atherosclerosis (72, 73), but at least one study found increased atherosclerosis in animals fed resveratrol (74). Although its presence in red wine has stimulated a great deal of interest in the potential for resveratrol to prevent cardiovascular disease, there is currently no convincing evidence that resveratrol has cardioprotective effects in humans, particularly in the amounts present in 1-2 glasses of red wine (see Sources).

Cancer

Resveratrol has been found to inhibit the <A href="http://lpi.oregonsta...proliferation">proliferation of a variety of human cancer cell lines, including those from breast, prostate, stomach, colon, pancreatic, and thyroid cancers (2). In animal models, oral administration of resveratrol inhibited the development of esophageal (75), intestinal (76), and mammary (breast) cancer (20, 77) induced by chemical carcinogens. However, oral resveratrol was not effective in inhibiting the development of lung cancer induced by carcinogens in cigarette smoke (78, 79). The effects of oral resveratrol administration on mice that are genetically predisposed to colon cancer have been mixed (80, 81), and a few studies have documented that oral resveratrol protects against colon cancer development in rats administered the carcinogen, 1,2-dimethylhydrazine (82-84). It is not known whether high intakes of resveratrol can help prevent cancer in humans. Clinical trials are currently underway to address this question and to also determine whether resveratrol might be beneficial in cancer treatment (85). Studies on human metabolism of resveratrol suggest that even very high dietary intakes of resveratrol may not result in tissue levels that are high enough to realize most of the protective effects demonstrated in cell culture studies (7, 12).

Longevity

Caloric restriction is known to extend the lifespans of a number of species, including mammals (86)
. In yeast, caloric restriction stimulates the activity of an enzyme known as Sir2 (87). Providing resveratrol to yeast increased Sir2 activity in the absence of caloric restriction and extended the replicative lifespan of yeast by 70% (6). Resveratrol feeding also extended the lifespans of worms (C. elegans) and fruit flies (D. melanogaster) by a similar mechanism (88). Additionally, resveratrol dose-dependently increased the lifespan of a vertebrate fish (N. furzeri) (89). However, it is not known whether resveratrol will have similar effects in higher animals. A recent study reported that resveratrol extended lifespan of mice on a high-calorie diet such that their lifespan was similar to that of mice fed a standard diet (90). Although resveratrol increased the activity of the homologous human enzyme (Sirt1) in the test tube (6), it is not known whether resveratrol can extend the human lifespan. Moreover, the resveratrol concentrations required to increase human Sirt1 activity were considerably higher than concentrations that have been measured in human plasma after oral consumption. Interestingly, a recent aging study in mice found that a low dose of dietary resveratrol altered gene expression in heart, brain, and skeletal muscle similar to that induced by caloric restriction (91). Like caloric restriction, resveratrol also blunted the age-related decline in heart function in this study. Clinical trials will be needed to determine if these findings are relevant to humans.

#65 DaffyDuck

  • Guest
  • 85 posts
  • 11

Posted 27 July 2008 - 05:56 PM

Dmitri,

A common thread in your reasonings again human use of resv seems to be a lack of bioavailibilty and to support that you have quoted some very old research. I suggest you look at some of the more recent studies. Also look at Sirtris human trials and what they are using.

#66 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 28 July 2008 - 01:06 AM

Dmitri,

A common thread in your reasonings again human use of resv seems to be a lack of bioavailibilty and to support that you have quoted some very old research. I suggest you look at some of the more recent studies. Also look at Sirtris human trials and what they are using.


This is what the website says:

Written in March 2005 by:
Jane Higdon, Ph.D.
Linus Pauling Institute
Oregon State University

Updated in June 2008 by:
Victoria J. Drake, Ph.D.
Linus Pauling Institute
Oregon State University



Reviewed in May 2008 by:
William P. Steward, M.D., Ph.D.
Professor of Oncology
Co-Director of Cancer Biomarkers and Prevention Group
Department of Oncology
University of Leicester

Copyright 2005-2008 Linus Pauling Institute

So, it looks like it is recent.



⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#67 DaffyDuck

  • Guest
  • 85 posts
  • 11

Posted 28 July 2008 - 01:35 AM

So, it looks like it is recent.

Studies on human metabolism of resveratrol suggest that even very high dietary intakes of resveratrol may not result in tissue levels that are high enough to realize most of the protective effects demonstrated in cell culture studies (7, 12).


Study 7 is from 2004 and 12 is from 2003. So yes, the Linus Pauling Institute has recently quoted old data. Again, I suggest taking a look at what Sirtris is doing. They are achieving bioavailable doses of Resveratrol that even us mere mortals can accomplish right now and the trials seem promising so far. Do a search for Sirtris here and you can find out quite a bit.

Edited by DaffyDuck, 28 July 2008 - 01:35 AM.


#68 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,944 posts
  • 1,616
  • Location:New York

Posted 28 July 2008 - 01:41 AM

So, it looks like it is recent.

Studies on human metabolism of resveratrol suggest that even very high dietary intakes of resveratrol may not result in tissue levels that are high enough to realize most of the protective effects demonstrated in cell culture studies (7, 12).


Study 7 is from 2004 and 12 is from 2003. So yes, the Linus Pauling Institute has recently quoted old data. Again, I suggest taking a look at what Sirtris is doing. They are achieving bioavailable doses of Resveratrol that even us mere mortals can accomplish right now and the trials seem promising so far. Do a search for Sirtris here and you can find out quite a bit.


I quite agree; Dmitri's studies are not current, and newer studies refute them.

Also, the joint pain issue is not valid either. The original posters with joint pain concluded there were other causes, and are taking resveratrol without problems.

#69 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 28 July 2008 - 02:23 AM

So, it looks like it is recent.

Studies on human metabolism of resveratrol suggest that even very high dietary intakes of resveratrol may not result in tissue levels that are high enough to realize most of the protective effects demonstrated in cell culture studies (7, 12).


Study 7 is from 2004 and 12 is from 2003. So yes, the Linus Pauling Institute has recently quoted old data. Again, I suggest taking a look at what Sirtris is doing. They are achieving bioavailable doses of Resveratrol that even us mere mortals can accomplish right now and the trials seem promising so far. Do a search for Sirtris here and you can find out quite a bit.


I quite agree; Dmitri's studies are not current, and newer studies refute them.

Also, the joint pain issue is not valid either. The original posters with joint pain concluded there were other causes, and are taking resveratrol without problems.


2004 is recent and like I mentioned before I don't trust studies that haven't been done for decades; I had previously mentioned that we do not know the adverse effects of using mega-doses for prolonged periods for many of these new drugs, so a 2008 study is not going to do it for me.

⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#70 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 28 July 2008 - 02:54 AM

The Linus Pauling Inst. paper is ok as far as it goes. My question for Dmitri is what are you finding in that paper that worries you? The atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic rabbits? They were fed 0.5% cholesterol in their diets, so the situation doesn't correspond well to a normal human. Is that the only thing or are there other concerns?

#71 DaffyDuck

  • Guest
  • 85 posts
  • 11

Posted 28 July 2008 - 02:58 AM

like I mentioned before I don't trust studies that haven't been done for decades


I didn't see where you stated that previously but perhaps I missed it. Your choice, of course.

Edited by DaffyDuck, 28 July 2008 - 02:59 AM.


#72 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 28 July 2008 - 03:09 AM

The Linus Pauling Inst. paper is ok as far as it goes. My question for Dmitri is what are you finding in that paper that worries you? The atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic rabbits? They were fed 0.5% cholesterol in their diets, so the situation doesn't correspond well to a normal human. Is that the only thing or are there other concerns?


Well, I'm a life extentionist and I worry about putting things in my body that could have adverse affects in the long run. All the studies that have been conducted are short term, I would like to see long term (as in decades) studies before putting anything into my body.

#73 DaffyDuck

  • Guest
  • 85 posts
  • 11

Posted 28 July 2008 - 03:15 AM

The Linus Pauling Inst. paper is ok as far as it goes. My question for Dmitri is what are you finding in that paper that worries you? The atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic rabbits? They were fed 0.5% cholesterol in their diets, so the situation doesn't correspond well to a normal human. Is that the only thing or are there other concerns?


Well, I'm a life extentionist and I worry about putting things in my body that could have adverse affects in the long run. All the studies that have been conducted are short term, I would like to see long term (as in decades) studies before putting anything into my body.


Hypothetical scenario: 10 years from now you get diabetes. SRT501 has completed human trials and has begun selling the drug as a treatment for diabetes. Would you take it?

#74 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 28 July 2008 - 02:18 PM

Dmitri
"I would like to see long term (as in decades) studies before putting anything into my body"

That is fine, many folks here will do the same. I presume you are on a strict CR routine, then?

I personally am interested in longevity, and will consider the words and studies from people much more intelligent than I, and who are involved in the research. I am lucky enough to have a friend that I have known for over 25 years that happens to be a Ph.D. in Experimental Pathology from UCLA. So it maybe easier for me to ask questions regarding resveratrol studies and his research.

We all have this "tipping point" of information, when we consider a new supplement to be beneficial for us. Some may require alot of information, and some may try anything if it sounds good.

Personally I can't do CR, so instead I take the basic milti-vitamin, calcium, magnesium, zinc, vitmanin d, and then the others that have taken a very long time for me to consider, such as water soluble Coq10, micro resveratrol, and a new supplement called Astragaloside IV we are making available.

Yes, some people called me crazy because I didn't take CoQ10 much earlier, but I was not convinced until recently. I had issues with the new item as well, but my friend calmed me down and explained Telemorase to me and how the company Ger** did not succeed in creating a immortal cell line for immunity, they could only extend the cells hayflick limit. That they (yes, he actually tried this himself) inserted a gene that caused telemorase to be in a constant "ON" state to try to make a cell immortal, and that the cell found a way to stop this anyway. That telemorase is a natural activity done by the body when you become sick, and that this helps the immune response. So throughout your life telemorase activity happens naturally. It get's turned on/off on it's own to help protect you.

And of course, Resveratrol which he is still amazed by because of what he has found it upregulated... and is currently doing some research on.

It takes some people alot of information, I definitely understand where you are coming from Dmitri.

Cheers
A

#75 Hazbra

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 0

Posted 28 July 2008 - 05:37 PM

Answer to the first post of this topic - taking mega doses of resveratrol is known to cause some problems - like joint problems mentioned - and is not really as beneficiary! Simple said - you should not take too much resveratrol. I am NOT saying you should completely avoid it, as it really has many health benefits - when taken at right doses and optimally in combination with some other nutrition.

Dmitri: asking doctors for an advice? Do not be naive - they are paid by big pharmaceutical companies - that explains a lot

I would suggest to visit longevinex site, it is the site of resveratrol products, but there are some articles you should read just to get a picture what the resveratol is about.

#76 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 28 July 2008 - 06:04 PM

Hazbra,

longiv**** originally used 100mg non-micronized resveratrol, why change this if it was the optimum dose? Mr BS (his initials) mentioned that his low dose was the best for about 3 years or more... Now he has come out with micrnoized resveratrol in his capsules, and has increased the amount of resveratrol that is absorbed in your body because of it.

So it appears that he now advocates what he considers 'mega-doses' because of the increased absorption.

Remember he takes 3 of these a day... that's 300mg but at 2x-3x the absorption of regular res.... isn't that equivalent to 600mg-900mg ?
I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) that is what Mr BS considers a mega-dose...

A

#77 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 28 July 2008 - 09:28 PM

Dmitri
"I would like to see long term (as in decades) studies before putting anything into my body"

That is fine, many folks here will do the same. I presume you are on a strict CR routine, then?


I don't practice CR, all I do is exercise and take multi-vitamin/Mineral supplement from GNC that also contains other chemicals such as L-arginine, etc. Here; you can see what the product contains in the thread I made about my regimen: http://www.imminst.o...M23-t23323.html

As for a telemorase gene. I would rather wait for stem cells that could replace old or dying cells. The telomerase therapy would likely cause Cancer since the longer cells live the more likely they are to make mistakes and the more mistakes that pile up the more likely you are to get cancer; I'm surprised this therapy is still being considered.

Edited by Michael, 29 August 2009 - 04:05 PM.
Trim quotes


⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#78 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 28 July 2008 - 09:32 PM

The Linus Pauling Inst. paper is ok as far as it goes. My question for Dmitri is what are you finding in that paper that worries you? The atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic rabbits? They were fed 0.5% cholesterol in their diets, so the situation doesn't correspond well to a normal human. Is that the only thing or are there other concerns?


Well, I'm a life extentionist and I worry about putting things in my body that could have adverse affects in the long run. All the studies that have been conducted are short term, I would like to see long term (as in decades) studies before putting anything into my body.


Hypothetical scenario: 10 years from now you get diabetes. SRT501 has completed human trials and has begun selling the drug as a treatment for diabetes. Would you take it?


I would take a drug that has been out for a while. The FDA puts drugs on the shelves because they are effective and they don't consider the long term adverse effects as I learned in health (I'm a health minor). This is why some recent drugs have been pulled from the market, we are seeing the adverse affects that the FDA did not bother to research.

#79 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 28 July 2008 - 09:56 PM

As for a telemorase gene. I would rather wait for stem cells that could replace old or dying cells. The telomerase therapy would likely cause Cancer since the longer cells live the more likely they are to make mistakes and the more mistakes that pile up the more likely you are to get cancer; I'm surprised this therapy is still being considered.


It is my understanding that the mistakes in the cells happen when the telomeres are short and they divide without complete cell "information" and reach cell senescence and either die, or maybe unhealthy, possibly mutated. By activating telemorase, which is naturally occuring in your body, one could keep telomeres healthy, and may lengthen them a bit.

Ger*** tried to make immortal cells using this method and failed. If they would have succeeded, then I would have not considered this supplement. I believe the most they could do is increase the hayflick limit by around 3 fold. The immune system of a 20 year old, at 60 still sounds pretty impressive too me.

Of course I will only be using an herbal extract that may do much of the heavy lifting, and do not care about copying the Ger** formulation.

BTW: This sounded all very SF to me at the time, and I have to say that if I would have heard this information from anybody else, I would have had a very hard time believing any of it. But the fact is that I trust the PHD who sat down and explained it to me, along with the fact that he was involved in some of the UCLA research.

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 28 July 2008 - 09:58 PM.


#80 DaffyDuck

  • Guest
  • 85 posts
  • 11

Posted 28 July 2008 - 10:41 PM

Dmitri, just out of curiosity, what are you doing that makes you consider yourself a life extensionist? How many extra years do you expect to gain? Personally, I think if you are really going to make some serious inroads, exercise and a basic multivitamin is not going to be enough and you are going to want to take some (well educated) risks. That's essentially what we are all doing. The great thing is that there are some really well educated people here taking that same educated risk. At the very least add some quality fish oil to your routine. It may prevent or reduce severity of Alzheimer's and heart disease in old age.

Edited by DaffyDuck, 28 July 2008 - 10:43 PM.


#81 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 28 July 2008 - 10:45 PM

As for a telemorase gene. I would rather wait for stem cells that could replace old or dying cells. The telomerase therapy would likely cause Cancer since the longer cells live the more likely they are to make mistakes and the more mistakes that pile up the more likely you are to get cancer; I'm surprised this therapy is still being considered.


It is my understanding that the mistakes in the cells happen when the telomeres are short and they divide without complete cell "information" and reach cell senescence and either die, or maybe unhealthy, possibly mutated. By activating telemorase, which is naturally occuring in your body, one could keep telomeres healthy, and may lengthen them a bit.

Ger*** tried to make immortal cells using this method and failed. If they would have succeeded, then I would have not considered this supplement. I believe the most they could do is increase the hayflick limit by around 3 fold. The immune system of a 20 year old, at 60 still sounds pretty impressive too me.

Of course I will only be using an herbal extract that may do much of the heavy lifting, and do not care about copying the Ger** formulation.

BTW: This sounded all very SF to me at the time, and I have to say that if I would have heard this information from anybody else, I would have had a very hard time believing any of it. But the fact is that I trust the PHD who sat down and explained it to me, along with the fact that he was involved in some of the UCLA research.

A


http://carcin.oxford...t/full/26/5/867
Cancer cells must accumulate many mutations before acquiring malignant characteristics. Each mutation probably requires at least 20–30 cell divisions: the cell in which an initial mutation occurs must expand to perhaps 1 million cells before there is a reasonable probability of a second mutation occurring. Furthermore, as most mutations are recessive, an additional clonal expansion is required to eliminate the remaining wild-type allele (usually through loss of heterozygosity). Limiting the number of available cell divisions to less than 100 would thus prevent pre-malignant cells from dividing after accumulating only a few mutations, and thus block their progression (10,11). Obviously the most efficient tumor-prevention strategy would be to have few or no available divisions, but this is clearly incompatible with the growth, maintenance and repair needs of the body of long-lived species. How then does one 'set' the maximal number of permitted divisions? Having many more divisions than one needs for an average lifespan would increase the risk of cancer without any benefit. The number of permitted divisions has thus probably been reduced to the point of providing 'optimal' cell turnover for one's expected lifespan in the wild (e.g. Stone Age conditions for humans). As modern improvements in sanitation, vaccines, antibiotics and other modern medical interventions have extended the average lifespan beyond that, we may now expect that proliferation limits may adversely affect the function of some tissues, especially in situations of chronic diseases involving increased cell turnover.

That sounds to me like the more divisions the more the mutations, which can cause cancer. So, this supplement you take would make your cells divide more since they live longer.

#82 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 28 July 2008 - 10:55 PM

Dmitri, just out of curiosity, what are you doing that makes you consider yourself a life extensionist? How many extra years do you expect to gain? Personally, I think if you are really going to make some serious inroads, exercise and a basic multivitamin is not going to be enough and you are going to want to take some (well educated) risks. That's essentially what we are all doing. The great thing is that there are some really well educated people here taking that same educated risk. At the very least add some quality fish oil to your routine. It may prevent or reduce severity of Alzheimer's and heart disease in old age.


I'm still young (23) and with the recent advancement in science I'm sure we will have technology that can extend our lives soon enough. On a Barbara Walters special called "Live to be 150 years", a scientist said that in 5-10 years we'll have stem cell technology that will enable us to live for hundreds of years. So, I don't think I need to take such extreme measures. Also, I'm not taking a basic multi vitamin/mineral supplement, the one I take has more than just vitamins and minerals it also contains other chemicals such L-Arginine, Alpha Lipoic Acid among others (which is used by Life Extenionists), it also has antioxidants which is something that most basic multi-vit and mins don't have.

⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#83 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 28 July 2008 - 11:02 PM

Dmitri,

From Epsilion's post:
http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry240049

I have read many articles in many journals talking about telomerase.
We know that it is widely use for cells immortalisation. Some researcher argued in their articles that activated
telomerase in immortalised cells could possibly lead to malignant phenotype (tumor) but without proof of their claims.
Many paper shows that these claims were unfounded and that experiments has no showed any evidence of
tumor formation linked to activated telomerase in somatic cells [1]. This said, we can agree that telomerase could be
something that could be use to extend lifespan.

[1]Jiang, Xu-Rong; Jimenez, Gretchen; Chang, Edwin; Frolkis, Maria; Kusler, Brenda; Sage, Marijke; Beeche, Michelle; Bodnar, Andrea G.; Wahl, Geoffrey M.; Tlsty, Thea D.; Chiu, Choy-Pik. Telomerase expression in human somatic cells does not induce changes associated with a transformed phenotype. Nature Genetics (1999), 21(1), 111-114.


Now if a 1999 study doesn't do it for you... lets try a 2008 presentation:

I was given this by a prof that stated:
New clinical data from AIDS patients at UCLA is available that discredits the notion that telomere elongation will increase the risk of cancer. Look especially at the Conclusion Slide (No. 99; fourth bullet).

http://revgenetics.com/SFauce.ppt

Basically certain things, (I think 5 things) need to happen before a cell turns cancerous. Telemorase alone will not do it, but it can be used to possibly extend life.
A

For those of you who have completely gone through our website, you may find a familiar name at the end of this powerpoint... :)

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 28 July 2008 - 11:04 PM.


#84 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 28 July 2008 - 11:20 PM

Can you provide a link?

A


I forgot to post the link:

http://forum.lef.org...=35&p=1&m=47492

"Since I started taking 300 mg of trans-resveratrol, my knees have been hurting: I feel sharp pains. I jog 1.5 miles every other day. I did not have problems before. Anyone else also having this problem? The 2 grams of glucosamine sulfate I take daily has not been helping with the pain. I am 32 years old."

"Further joint deterioration seems to have been halted since I stopped using resveratrol, but I can't reverse the damage now. But, after a month, I just now tried 40 mg of resveratrol for just one day, and I had a severe reaction where every single joint in my body started to hurt: it is now finally going away one week later, but some new joints are now snapping and crackling for the first time ever. I believe resveratrol has permanantly ruined me. These are the risks when one uses himself as a guinea pig. And I still plan to experiment with other things as well."

I told him he should have consulted a doctor before starting any supplement as the bottles always warn you, but his reply was that doctors wouldn't know about Res or other supplements.

#85 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,944 posts
  • 1,616
  • Location:New York

Posted 29 July 2008 - 12:18 AM

Can you provide a link?

A


I forgot to post the link:

http://forum.lef.org...=35&p=1&m=47492

"Since I started taking 300 mg of trans-resveratrol, my knees have been hurting: I feel sharp pains. I jog 1.5 miles every other day. I did not have problems before. Anyone else also having this problem? The 2 grams of glucosamine sulfate I take daily has not been helping with the pain. I am 32 years old."

"Further joint deterioration seems to have been halted since I stopped using resveratrol, but I can't reverse the damage now. But, after a month, I just now tried 40 mg of resveratrol for just one day, and I had a severe reaction where every single joint in my body started to hurt: it is now finally going away one week later, but some new joints are now snapping and crackling for the first time ever. I believe resveratrol has permanantly ruined me. These are the risks when one uses himself as a guinea pig. And I still plan to experiment with other things as well."

I told him he should have consulted a doctor before starting any supplement as the bottles always warn you, but his reply was that doctors wouldn't know about Res or other supplements.

He also kvetched here: http://www.imminst.o...o...=21432&st=0
Hw was offered good advice.

#86 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 29 July 2008 - 12:34 AM

I was given this by a prof that stated:
New clinical data from AIDS patients at UCLA is available that discredits the notion that telomere elongation will increase the risk of cancer. Look especially at the Conclusion Slide (No. 99; fourth bullet).

http://revgenetics.com/SFauce.ppt

Basically certain things, (I think 5 things) need to happen before a cell turns cancerous. Telemorase alone will not do it, but it can be used to possibly extend life.


The Mayo Clinic has looked at several research that used coq10 to treat illnesses and the grade the supplement received was mainly C's. The only A it received was in treating Coenzyme Q10 deficiency and it received a B in treating High blood pressure (hypertension). The C grade stand for: "Unclear scientific evidence for this use"

Click on the link and scroll down to the chart which shows you the grades:
http://www.mayoclini...ent-coenzymeq10

It also has the following:



Side Effects and Warnings There are few serious reported side effects of CoQ10. Side effects are typically mild and brief, stopping without any treatment needed. Reactions may include nausea, vomiting, stomach upset, heartburn, diarrhea, loss of appetite, skin itching, rash, insomnia, headache, dizziness, itching, irritability, increased light sensitivity of the eyes, fatigue, or flu-like symptoms.

CoQ10 may lower blood sugar levels. Caution is advised in patients with diabetes or hypoglycemia, and in those taking drugs, herbs, or supplements that affect blood sugar. Serum glucose levels may need to be monitored by a healthcare provider, and medication adjustments may be necessary.

Low blood platelet number was reported in one person taking CoQ10. However, other factors (viral infection, other medications) may have been responsible. Lowering of platelets may increase the risk of bruising or bleeding, although there is a lack of known reports of bleeding from CoQ10. Caution is advised in people who have bleeding disorders or who are taking drugs that increase the risk of bleeding. Dosing adjustments may be necessary.

CoQ10 may decrease blood pressure, and caution is advised in patients with low blood pressure or taking blood pressure medications. Elevations of liver enzymes have been reported rarely, and caution is advised in people with liver disease or taking medications that may harm the liver. CoQ10 may lower blood levels of cholesterol or triglycerides. Thyroid hormone levels may be altered based on one study.

Organ damage due to lack of oxygen/blood flow during intense exercise has been reported in a study of patients with heart disease, although the specific role of CoQ10 is not clear. Vigorous exercise is often discouraged in people using CoQ10 supplements.

Edited by Michael, 29 August 2009 - 04:08 PM.
Trim quotes


#87 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 29 July 2008 - 01:44 AM

I was not talking about CoQ10, but interesting post...

#88 Dmitri

  • Guest
  • 841 posts
  • 33
  • Location:Houston and Chicago

Posted 29 July 2008 - 04:12 AM

I was not talking about CoQ10, but interesting post...


from your previous post:

...Yes, some people called me crazy because I didn't take CoQ10 much earlier, but I was not convinced until recently. I had issues with the new item as well, but my friend calmed me down and explained Telemorase to me and how the company Ger** did not succeed in creating a immortal cell line for immunity....



⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#89 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 29 July 2008 - 04:19 AM

Ah.. ok, I see...

thanks for the info, I will chew into it some...

A

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#90 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 29 July 2008 - 06:19 PM

It would be great if "telomerase could be something that could be use to extend lifespan".
I don't think however, that the fear of malignancies have been put to rest.
It might be instructive to recall the history of Geron involvement in telomerase research. The initial objective was to find telomerase inhibitors to fight cancer. This is still going on as sown in:
Nat Rev Cancer. 2008 Mar;8(3):167-79.
Telomerase and cancer therapeutics.
Harley CB.
Geron Corporation, 230 Constitution Drive, Menlo Park, California 94025, USA. CHarley@Geron.com
Telomerase is an attractive cancer target as it appears to be required in essentially all tumours for immortalization of a subset of cells, including cancer stem cells. Moreover, differences in telomerase expression, telomere length and cell kinetics between normal and tumour tissues suggest that targeting telomerase would be relatively safe. Clinical trials are ongoing with a potent and specific telomerase inhibitor, GRN163L, and with several versions of telomerase therapeutic vaccines. The prospect of adding telomerase-based therapies to the growing list of new anticancer products is promising, but what are the advantages and limitations of different approaches, and which patients are the most likely to respond?
PMID: 18256617 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE].

That upregulating telomerase in immune cells is a good thing does not preclude the danger of also promoting malignancies. It would be helpful to see what happens when telomerase activators are applied to precancerous cell (in vitro of course).

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users