LONGECITY

according to Anthony Loera there's 48mg of Astragaloside IV for every 30g of raw astragalus powder (non standarized). Cyclo I'm not sure the quantity but it's obtained by hydrolizing Astragaloside IV. There's an article somewhere that explains how to extract cyclo by fermenting ASIV with a strain of probiotic fungi.
Edited by marcobjj, 28 April 2013 - 07:40 PM.

are you sure about MD being a new thing? if you run an image search for TA65, the logo on every package incluedes the "MD", I think it's always been there.

problem with Chinese stuff is that a dollar or two a gram sounds very suspect IMO.

I have an empty TA-65 bottle from 2011. There is no 'MD' in the logo, and the label says 5 mg of astragalus extract, not 8.

You're right, RevGenetics sold a version called 'Astral Fruit B' in 2011. Anthony personally guaranteed that each capsule contained at least 5 mg of cycloastragenol.

But that is from 2009!! Soo ur incorrect. in what ever u try to point out. I'm in the present, not the past. I know they changed the formula several times. ask if they had cyclo in astral fruit in 2011. That text only proofs it didn't have cyclo in 2009. soo proofs nothing

are you sure about MD being a new thing? if you run an image search for TA65, the logo on every package incluedes the "MD", I think it's always been there.

problem with Chinese stuff is that a dollar or two a gram sounds very suspect IMO.

I have an empty TA-65 bottle from 2011. There is no 'MD' in the logo, and the label says 5 mg of astragalus extract, not 8.

good to know, so Niner is correct, they've upped the dosage per capsule also looks like they're trying to distinguish their product by increased bioavailability. Consumers are being benefited by the increasing competition of generic cycloastragenol.
Edited by marcobjj, 30 April 2013 - 05:59 PM.

You're right, RevGenetics sold a version called 'Astral Fruit B' in 2011. Anthony personally guaranteed that each capsule contained at least 5 mg of cycloastragenol.

But that is from 2009!! Soo ur incorrect. in what ever u try to point out. I'm in the present, not the past. I know they changed the formula several times. ask if they had cyclo in astral fruit in 2011. That text only proofs it didn't have cyclo in 2009. soo proofs nothing

did he measure his telomeres with cyclo in the formula? if you go back to around page 50 and earlier, you'll see that he did using the ASIV + Chitosan. It looks like the cycloastragenol astral fruit was discontinued very shortly after he announced and began selling TA65.
Edited by marcobjj, 30 April 2013 - 05:55 PM.

I don't know about Anthony, but a member called Greenpower measured his telomeres before and after on separate trials with ASIV, Cyclo, and astragalus extract. The astragalus extract finished 1st.

yeah that is all over the internet. I'd like to see a similar test measuring the percentage of critically short telomeres instead of mean telomere length.

yeah that is all over the internet. I'd like to see a similar test measuring the percentage of critically short telomeres instead of mean telomere length.

Yeah, I think people are being misled left and right. Most of the commercially available telomere length tests have a half kilobase variation from run to run. I think there's a lot of misinterpretation of the natural variation of the measuring method. Because we aren't looking at the fraction of critically short telomeres, I think that people are making decisions about what compounds work or don't work on the basis of randomness.

What do you think about this: http://www.prweb.com...rweb9547254.htm ? Does someone has the complete study ? I dont understand, some studies explain TA 65 does not extend lifespan and others do

I don't think anyone knows if TA-65 extends lifespan in humans at this point. The study discussed at your link concerned gene therapy with telomerase, not the use of TA-65.

What do you think about this: http://www.prweb.com...rweb9547254.htm ? Does someone has the complete study ? I dont understand, some studies explain TA 65 does not extend lifespan and others do

Yes I would say: TA65 might, if we believe result achieve in vivo by TA65 on telomerase. So do you have the study please ?

You can download it free here: http://onlinelibrary...200245/abstract

As I said, it has nothing to do with TA-65.

Thanks, I will have a look if this is the same process cited for TA65, because with this product, the mice even died earlier... it's dont make a sens

The process in the Blasco study is not even remotely like how TA-65 works. In which product study did the mice die earlier than the controls?

they died earlier? Title says

"RevGenetics Congratulates Maria Blasco For Extending Lifespan by 24% Using Telomerase"

Yeah, I assume that he must be referring to some other study.

Yes I speak about the previous study I posted not this last one.

According to this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3045570/

TA-65 is "exclusively licensed to TA Sciences from Geron Corporation, is a >95% pure single chemical entity isolated from a proprietary extract of the dried root of Astragalus membranaceus and formulated into 5- to 10-mg capsules with inert excipients."

So, I'm now 100% sure it's about 95% - 98% pure cycloastragenol but micronized. In next few months I will give you more information about test I will done on it and see how much it is micronized (I think it's around 1 micron).

Shinobi have u EVER opened a TA-65 capsuled and felt the on the powder??? I doubt u have other wise you wouldn't say it's micronized. I have done this both on TA-65 and on Revgenetics Resvertrol which is micronized. The difference is extreme. Soo no TA-65 is not micronized. Out of that simple test...

But u were 100% sure so guess u tried it right?

Shinobi have u EVER opened a TA-65 capsuled and felt the on the powder??? I doubt u have other wise you wouldn't say it's micronized. I have done this both on TA-65 and on Revgenetics Resvertrol which is micronized. The difference is extreme. Soo no TA-65 is not micronized. Out of that simple test...

But u were 100% sure so guess u tried it right?

So, TA-65 is mostly cycloastragenol which does not appear to be micronized. If so, I wonder what is the 'magic' property of TA-65 that results in supposedly enhanced bioavailability when compared to plain ol' cyclo? Is this 'magic' mostly unsubstantiated marketing hype to keep folks paying about $440 per month for a modest 10 mg daily dose? That would be a lot to pay for micronization even if it actually happens to be manufactured that way.

he was 100% sure it was micronized so... guess u should ignore me

he was 100% sure it was micronized so... guess u should ignore me

Put it under a microscope.

i putted it in water, the reserveratrol didn't even mix that well with water some kinda stayed on top of the water... TA-65 mixed well but was alot of bigger particle left on the bottom some as big as a sand particles. anyway one feel it when one grind it on the fingertips.I have no microscope

I don't mind if some Company would start Selling micronized Cyclo though, sounds like a good idea

Shinobi have u EVER opened a TA-65 capsuled and felt the on the powder??? I doubt u have other wise you wouldn't say it's micronized. I have done this both on TA-65 and on Revgenetics Resvertrol which is micronized. The difference is extreme. Soo no TA-65 is not micronized. Out of that simple test...

But u were 100% sure so guess u tried it right?

I'm sure about the fact it is ONLY cycloastragenol and suppose it is micronized. As I said, I will get my own bottle to experiment in lab. Be patient.

About your experiment, you dont give any argument because the powder is only few mg package with filler and excipient.. It woulb be dextrin.. Only cyclo is micronized. Well I imagin you separate the cyclo from excipient right ?

Revgenetics made the claim that TA65's "appears to have been micronized". They also claim on their site that C60oo is more powerful than Cycloastragenol, even though it hasn't been tested in humans and it's path of action is still unknown, so I take their claims with a grain of salt.
Edited by marcobjj, 04 May 2013 - 01:06 AM.

fine then, can u show link of this? That revgenetics have said it?
Edited by AdamI, 04 May 2013 - 08:37 AM.

And if anthony said that, be sure it is, because it is very very simple to know that just need to have a filter.. And revgenetics already test some competitors resveratrol to see if they are really micronized or not.

They also claim on their site that C60oo is more powerful than Cycloastragenol, even though it hasn't been tested in humans and it's path of action is still unknown, so I take their claims with a grain of salt.

pure bullshit. Not scientific at all

fine then, can u show link of this? That revgenetics have said it?

http://cycloastragenol.com/

Revgenetics owns the domain, (their logo displayed at the very top):

"Study By University of Paris Cites Material That Is More Powerful Than Cycloastragenol. - April, 2012. Professor Fathi Moussa from the University of Paris uses C60 Olive Oilto almost double the lifespan of rodents while Cycloastragenol has never shown an increase in rodent longevity. C60 Fullerene Olive Oil is now considered the most powerful longevity material currently being studied. Read study."

Shinobi have u EVER opened a TA-65 capsuled and felt the on the powder??? I doubt u have other wise you wouldn't say it's micronized. I have done this both on TA-65 and on Revgenetics Resvertrol which is micronized. The difference is extreme. Soo no TA-65 is not micronized. Out of that simple test...

But u were 100% sure so guess u tried it right?

You can't tell if it's micronized that way. There's only 5-10 milligrams of cyclo in the capsule, but there's probably a hundred or more milligrams of other stuff in there. The cyclo may have been micronized, then mixed with a granular water soluble excipient. The cyclo could be adhering to the excipient in such a way that you wouldn't be able to even see the micronized powder.

My guess is that it is micronized.

yeah they pointed that out to me:)

It would be interesting to know how micronized cyclo (perhaps TA-65) compares with normal cyclo taken with chitosan and/or bioperine in terms of bioavailability.