103 replies to this topic

[reason]

Personally, I think "supplement trance" is almost as bad as your "death trance" - it's a form of displacement behavior. Certainly we should keep hammering on the serious work aimed at radical life extension.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

[kevin]

I think "supplement trance" is almost as bad as your "death trance"

A supplement trance is not really a trance, but it is a mantra I'll grant you.. at least today when other options are limited. There is a tremendous difference, and I'd say a critical one to our goals however, between the mindsets of people hooked on supplements and those in the 'death trance'. People who take supplements are actively seeking answers to health problems, while those in the 'death trance' never even entertain the thought and subscribe to the idea of letting nature take its course. It never occurs to them that anything they could do to increase the length and quality of their lives would be worth the effort or expense.

Supplement takers have broken through the 'aging is natural' barrier, and are willing to expend considerable resources in time and money to research and obtain their products. Even to have the discipline to take supplements effectively qualifies those who take them as dedicated life-extensionists. All in all I'd say the move to taking supplements is an indication that the individual is no longer willing to just lay down and "take it". This is the critical shift away from 'acceptance of the inevitable' which makes progress possible and without which nothing is.

I agree that supplement takers see through the glass darkly.. but at least they see. Many see pie-in-the-sky technologies as too far on the horizon to push for at the moment, but as the evidence continues to roll in I think we will see this segment of baby booming consumerism begin to bang the drum for more effective therapies and funding for research. At least that is my hope.

[Richard Leis]

I haven't been paying attention to my site statistics...after reading the latest update in this forum I checked it out. There was a huge spike yesterday, all of it searches for "Protandim". I see the point about this being an opportunity for more people to hear about life extension. Is any news good news, even if it is just a supplement? I wonder what damage could be caused by an ineffective product?

[prologue]

Did the ABC reporter take the new formula minus the CMX-1152 or was he taking some hybrid formula? Were his T bars reduced with the existing formula available to consumers?

[2yourhealth]

Yes the formula the ABC reporter took was the formulation available to consumers now. Lifeline had never moved forward with production of the CMX-1152 peptide. The 45% reduction in oxidative stress levels were achieved with the current formulation.

[fredv]

Hello, New here...
Not to sound out of touch but can I just ask a couple direct questions for direct answers on this subject....

1. is the current marketed formula for this suppliment the one that the was mentioned in the ABC News feature or is it altered &/or less effective than the CMX-1152 formula and if so, where can that be obtained...

2. Does anyone know any side effects for these drugs/suppliments?
They sound like they affect the body more than just vitamin E or C or Zinc.....
I just don't want to take the stuff or have a loved one take it and then wind up like Lyle Alzado.(ex-football player who took steroids and didn't realize the side effects and contracted brain cancer)

I am a 43 year old male of average health who is moderately interested in the product, however my mother, who watched the ABC show with me is 78 and suffers from Scleroderma is VERY interested to try it to see if it helps her with that.
She thinks if it only makes her last few years a bit more tolerable it's a godsend.....
My view at the moment is that if it does help her without anything adverse then I would be interested in trying it myself....


note: it appears from the post before this one that it was in fact the newest formula that was profiled on ABC... though if someone else can confirm this I would appreciate it...
thanks in advance...

FredV

[2yourhealth]

Well Fred as someone who has been following this company for some time and has been pretty much a pain in the neck for the people at Lifeline in the way of asking too many questions, I at least know what is going on. So as my previous post mentions the CMX-1152 peptide has never been produced by Lifeline, this compound was looked into by the company and a licensing agreement signed with Ceremedix because of its ability to increase SOD, CAT, and GPX, however when further research was done it was also found that the compound increases other things within the body which may have a negative effect, so 1152 was essentially scrapped and the focus was put on a more natural pill that would do the job of increasing the primary antioxidants they wanted and NOT have any negative effects and effectively reduce oxidative stress, and with the help of the worlds foremost experts in antioxidants they came up with the formulation now available and used for all tests and studies you have read about.

As for side affects, as of now it doesn't appear that there are any side affects, I've been taking it for some time now and don't have any.

As for your mother Fred, I think she could surely benefit from having oxidative stress levels of a 20 year old, don't you? I'd get her on it right away, I'm younger and in good health so I am taking it as more of a pre-emptive stike on slowing aging and preventative measures against diseases and so forth. You can go to WWW.Protandim.com and read more about the science itself and also buy some from there as well. In addition Fred, if you do get your mother on it and you see some real noticeable improvement in her health I would contact Lifeline and let them know, I'm sure they would be interested in hearing about it. I wish you well.

[reason]

I think I'd buy the FDA explanation for not using CMX-1152 as proposed in a comment at Fight Aging!:

"CMX-1152 was an animal peptide segment which will require FDA approval taking at least five years. The CereMedix-Liveline partnership had hoped that they would be able to market it as an unregulated "neutraceutical," but things fell apart when they determined that they could not."

I don't think actual efficacy is high on the list of motivations here.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

[kevin]

2yourhealth,

It's great that you have been doing your homework and you are obviously sold on the product given the content of your first post. I'm curious if you know if they are planning any lifespan studies in mice? One thing I've spoken to many scientists who specialize in the role of oxidative stress in aging about is antioxidants, both endogenous and otherwise. The one thing they all come back to is "Sure.. but do the mice live longer?"

[2yourhealth]

Kevin the answer to your question is, YES. I believe they even mentioned in the Primetime Interview that mice studies were going to take place soon.

As to your post "reason" I have also heard that other explanation for not using CMX-1152, that it would need to be classified as a drug and not a Nutraceutical but not really sure if that or my other reason, or a combination of both caused the shift in their business plan. I do know that Dr. McCord is probably the most well respected in anything SOD related and I've come to respect Mr Driscoll (The CEO) very much from speaking with him a few times, they are truly committed to putting out an effective and safe product, thats why I get so enthusuastic so forgive me if I jump on somebody that tries to bash them :-) hence my very first post.

[eternaltraveler]

I just don't think protandim is anything new. Only this press about it is. Many of the participants on this forum have been taking the ingredients in protandim for years now. IMHO the cost of this pill is not worth it.

If people are really interested in fighting aging they would be better off investing the money they would otherwise spend on protandim in real anti-aging research, such as the MPrize. Or split it between that and buying all the ingredients yourself. These are not expensive herbs here.

[kevin]

Thanks 2yourhealth...

It will be interesting to see how long their critters live, and they really should consider registering a few of them for the Mprize, even if their expected extension may not reach the bar set by Spindler's mice. The publicity they would gain for their product would be worthwhile.

As for 'bashing' Protandim... I don't believe anyone here is presenting anything but facts. It was/is very sloppy to be presenting data and information dealing with the CMX product where it could easily be confused with the new botanical formulation which, as has been mentioned, is really nothing new except for its packaging and marketing.

Still, as a first step in breaking the back of the 'aging is inevitable' doom walk.. (like that one John), more PR will draw attention to the efforts of science and hopefully snap people out of it.

Do you see more value in supporting Protandim than the Mprize?

[fredv]

Many thanks to all for your answers to my ?'s
Please excuse just a couple more.....

2yourHealth, are you an employee of Protandim? or just a very enthusiastic user?
(or both) and how long have you been taking it and what are your results/benefits?

Elrond, what exactly are the Herbs/active ingredients in Protandium?


again, I thank you in advance.

FredV.

[2yourhealth]

Hey Fred, no I don't work for "Protandim" but neither does anybody else..LOL, Protandim is the product, the name of the company is Lifeline Therapeutics, and no I don't work for them, I am in finance so I guess you can call me an enthusiastic user. I have been using the product for several months, and I can't say that I feel any tremendous life altering changes however as I mentioned I am young and in very good health to begin with but when I 1st started taking it I noticed a decrease in body fat without changing my diet at all, I also noticed better memory and increased focus, I also haven't had as much as a sniffle since I've been taking it, I'm guessing its just keeping my immune system at its peak. I'd be just happy knowing that I'm lowering my oxidative stress levels, anything else is just a bonus.

I think someone else had previously posted all the ingredients, they all work in combination to boost the levels of SOD, CAT, and GPX within the body which in turn helps to eliminate free radicals which are damaging our cells. All I know is that I plan on taking this for the rest of my life.

[Matt]

If you are not that old then Im sure that you wont be taking it for the rest of your life. Because I'm pretty confident that something better will come along soon...

[eternaltraveler]

the herbs in protadnim (as listed on their website) are:
Proprietary Blend 675 mg:
* Milk thistle extract (Silybum marianum) (seed)
* Bacopa extract (Bacopa monneri) (aerial part)
* Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) (root)
* Green tea extract (Camellia sinensis) (leaf)
* Turmeric extract (Curcuma longa) (rhizome)

Based on what I have seen this dosage is probably too small.

[martinc64]

Hi folks,

I am new here and really new to this subject.

I saw a news blurb about something related to aging a few years ago and never really gave it much thought but I was interested.

I have also been interested in age related diseases, at least in regard to preventing them. Diabetes is of particular interest since my mother developed diabetes when she was about 10 years older than I am now.

I saw the ABC Primetime Live piece about Protandim and starting looking into it more seriously. I ordered a one-month supply (it arrived this morning).

I have read a few articles by Reason over at the fightaging website and I have read this thread pretty thoroughly. I am not sure what to think. From the ABC piece it seemed like there were a handful of very reputable scientists who believe in Protandim and intend to continue testing it. It specifically mentioned that they would begin tests to see if it extended the age of mice. I also recall that they tested some humans to see if their level of oxidative stress had been reduced and the results were impressive.

Am I wrong about what I saw on the ABC news article? Were they being misleading?

I have some questions, which I hope can be answered here.

1) Elrond mentions above that he reviewed the ingredients and believes they are in too small a dose. Would increasing the dose be worthwhile? I am curious if the dosage recommended on the bottle coincides with the dosage given to the test subjects on the ABC article. That dosage appeared to work.

2.) What lifestyle changes or lifestyle in general would you recommend to extend healthy life?

3.) If the tests on mice prove that Protandim lowers oxidative stress in the mice but that they do not live longer does that necessarily mean that Protandim is not worth taking? Is it possible to experience benefits from lower Oxidative Stress without it being coupled to extended life?

4.) I would like to learn more about the project (Methuselah?) that has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread and I'd like to learn more about Healthy Life Extension in general. Any suggestions along those lines would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you in advance to anyone with the patience to answer some or all of these questions.

[jaydfox]

3.) If the tests on mice prove that Protandim lowers oxidative stress in the mice but that they do not live longer does that necessarily mean that Protandim is not worth taking? Is it possible to experience benefits from lower Oxidative Stress without it being coupled to extended life?

Yes. Reduced oxidative stress could possibly improve quality of life (improved health), without extending the length of it. More likely, however, is that it will increase mean lifespan somewhat (by preventing diseases at young ages), but not maximum lifespan (because it's not affecting the "rate of aging").

2.) What lifestyle changes or lifestyle in general would you recommend to extend healthy life?

I would recommend Calorie Restriction. There's a mountain of science behind it, compared to the molehill that supports Protandim. As an added benefit, there is entire community devoted to helping people safely practice Calorie Restriction:
http://www.calorierestriction.org/

You can find more information at Reason's website as well:
http://longevitymeme...restriction.cfm

[reason]

Welcome aboard martinc64 - you can find out more about the Methuselah Foundation, the foundation's Mprize and Three Hundred initiatives, research prizes in general, and why supporting such efforts is a very good idea at the following links:

http://www.mprize.org
http://www.longevity...arch_prizes.cfm
http://www.longevity...ree_hundred.cfm
http://www.longevity...1&article_id=16

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

[Bruce Klein]

Welcome, Martin.

Keep in mind our Conference in Atlanta Nov 5
http://www.imminst.org/conference

Bruce

[circuitblue]

Wow. Are people on this site taking the protandium people seriously? Is there even a scrap of evidence that it has any logevity extension in *any* organism? After reading about the absurd CeriMedix marketing endeavor and this appearing to be a simple extension of this, at first glance it seems the only difference between eating these pills and injecting oneself with goat testicle extracts is that the protandium people have much bigger marketing departments than the French quack doctors. If anyone has any information to the contrary, I'd be very curious to see it.

I believe it is a great thing that many people have come to accept the idea that mortality and the symptoms of old age are not absolute necessities, and such ideology may someday pass the scrutiny of pragmatic scientific rigor. Unfortunately, the aspiration for long life seems to cloud the reason of all those looking for a "quick solution," and rather than supporting the portion of the scientific community that will someday make such dreams a reality, it appears as though those with the most bloated ungrounded claims come out with a substantial portion of funding that would otherwise go to good use. How might we change this?

I believe that it is the duty of any scientist encountering unsubstatiated "anti-aging" products to expose them for what they are. To date, *there is absolutely no drug, supplement or therapy that has been proven to extend lifespan*. There have been numerous scientific journal articles establishing this, under the purvey of which no "new revolutionary drug" has been missed.

To circumvent the continued propagation of asinine contemporary snake oil, and hand-in-hand the allocation of more human resources towards a widespread layman understanding of true anti-aging medicine as it develops, I highly encourage moderators of these forums to be vigilant in referring readers to substantiated sources of information. Dreams, like the attenuation of the aging process and senescence, are one thing. Pure fantasy, such as thinking companies like "Lifeline Therapeutics" are going to bring these to you, is quite another.

-Chris Smelick

[Matt]

Maybe it wont extend ones life by a decade but may enable a person that takes the supplements to reach old age and help avoid premature death.

Edited by Matt, 14 June 2005 - 12:31 PM.

[martinc64]

Circuitblue, the answer to your question is, no. there is no evidence that protandim extends the life of any organism.

On the other hand, I believe there is evidence that it lowers oxidative stress in humans.

[circuitblue]

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that any antioxidant extends the lifespan of any mammal. If there is a scrap of evidence to the contrary, correct me.

[temolik]

Hi,

This is my first post on this forum. (Maybe expect more from me later).

Don't have too much to say about Protandim. Its a shame Lifeline are selling it the way they are, but they are after profits after all.

I don't feel very threatened by companies like this, as much as Reason and many others are on this board.

I know there is the feeling that sensational advertising using phrases like "anti-aging" is scientifically dishonest and damages the reputation of true anti-aging science.

But I say that the popularity of products like this shows that the advertising works, and further, advances the anti-aging meme, which as many have said, is crucial for other types of research to receive more funding. So I don't see Protandim as a threat.

However, I really want to reply to Jay about calorie restriction. I don't disagree with what he posted (actually I've been somewhat of a fan of his posts on this board).

However, I don't really think calorie restriction is really a valid option for the general public out there.

I'll give some background on my view.

Like Aubrey, I'm married to a woman 19 years my senior. That doesn't have much to do with the topics on this board I know. But I will say, that for me, this has opened my eyes to the age issue more than anything else. I was always a transhumanist (and an unapologetic Christian too actually) and a believer in life extension. But being in this marriage makes you realize how truly precious time is, and how 10 years can go by in the blink of an eye. Our lives seem so short.

CR would not be an option for my wife. She is one of those cursed souls who struggles with a metabolism problem and with weight. Dieting is hard enough of an ordeal for her, let alone CR.

She is not alone. I'd dare say that many people out there who hunger for life extension simply wouldn't be able practically to implement CR. If you can manage it, I would say you are a member of a blessed minority.

CR is fine if you can manage it. But even there, there is no scientific documentation yet that indicates it does anything for humans.

Do you think through all of the thousands and thousands of years of human history, that some others might not have practiced calorie restriction, even inadvertantly in previous ages. In India, there were all kinds of ascetics who lived on restricted diets.

There is no evidence, and no stories even that I am aware of that document any significant difference to natural human lifespan, no stories of anyone living past 120. And many of those individuals who have reached 100-120 are well known to not have practiced CR or even lived a "healthy" lifestyle per se.

Aging is such a powerful force that many of its effects become easy to detect visually, from a person's appearance. I have seen over the years, many practicioners of CR through the media. And while this is hardly a scientifically rigorous observation, I have noticed none of these seemed detectably younger than their stated age.

So yes, there is science demonstrating effects in many mammals. Nothing in humans yet. This is not unimportant.

I'm not disputing that CR maybe better than the nothing alternatives we currently have to stave off aging.

But for most people in today's world, this is simply a non-starter. For this reason, I don't like to see CR promoted much. Its not going to be an answer for people generally.

I belive Aubrey's theory that the lifespan additions from CR are probably no greater than 5 years, or I submit, we would have observed a correlation before now between CR and lifespan.

Its not like food and diets are new. I'm sure infinite permutations and combinations have been tried from all the humans who have lived on this Earth in all history, but we have not noticed anything.

You may say that proper nutrition was simply not achievable in previous ages (I think that's a hard sell actually) and you may say that somehow the correlations that were there were simply not noticed. Again I find that a hard sell. If CR had any drastic noticeable effects, these would have been observed.

If centenarians who lived an unhealthy lifestyle, drinking and smoking there way along (and I've heard many stories of these), practiced CR, mightn't they manage to break the documented age-of-death barrier? Yet so far as we know, no one has managed to live past 122 to date.

If CR works as any other "healthy" lifestyle in humans then that is great. But it doesn't make CR a proper life extension technology for our species.

[jaydfox]

temolik:

...there is no scientific documentation yet that indicates it does anything for humans.

Well, that depends on what you mean by "anything". It has been shown to dramatically increase one's health profile, at least as measured by a dramatic reduction in risk factors. Insulin levels drop and sensitivity is improved/restored, fasting glucose levels bottom out, cholesterol (particularly triglycerides and LDL) is reduced in most cases (a few exceptions, which are most likely genetic in nature), hormone levels are reduced and better regulated. Cancer rates drop significantly in the studies done on populations that were inadvertently practicing CR, so contrary to what you've stated, we have detected the benefits of CR in the myriad diets practiced by the tens of billions of poeple that have lived. Lifespan gains were minimal, but we're still working out the details on that. So many people died of extrinsic causes in centuries gone by, that measuring the intrinsic rate of mortality becomes quite problematic. And in times when people had to work brutal manual labor, or even fight for their lives, CR would have put them at a disadvantage in many ways, which would increase all-cause mortality rates, even if they were healthier with respect to cancer, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, etc.

So it's just too early yet to say whether CR will add 5 years or 20 to people's maximum potential lifespans. 35 years is no longer as plausible as it once was, but de Grey's contention of 2-3 years is equally as implausible. Time will tell.

Of course, SENS and other true anti-aging technologies will probably come out before CR can be fully vindicated. There are people who have been practicing CRON for more than 20 years, but they are very few in number. There are currently a few thousand CR practitioners (doing CR on purpose, that is), and in 20-30 years, we should have some excellent data to compare against other healthy diets that are not calorie-restricted. By that time, SENS will be all the rage, with some of the seven aspects already completed, so CR will probably still not be attractive to the general public, even with the new data in human studies.

[temolik]

I don't really disagree with anything you've said there Jay. (The only minor quibble would be whether in fact gains in lifespan from CR would indeed have been measurable in past times. We can't be too sure that nothing would have been measurable. Indeed with the mouse studies available, weren't the mice on CR reported to be stronger and more vigorous than those not on CR? So mightn't humans in past times on CR possibly been healthier in every way, if the theory is correct?)

In any case, I don't disagree that CR might improve health. I conceded that. When I said that, there is no scientific evidence that it does "anything" for humans, I was actually referring to lifespan increase only.

I have heard that CR is a "healthy" lifestyle technique, and the evidence you cite below supports that. Is it better or more effective than other techniques to boost health and diminish risks of facing heart disease, cancer and other major health afflictions?

Indeed you do mention that the existing information of the effect of CR on human lifespan suggests that any effects have been minimal.

The more scientifically rigorous studies being undertaken currently may or may not obtain different findings.

In any case, I agree with your last points Jay. By the time we have good information on CR's effects on humans, there is a good chance that superior anti-aging therapies are either available or well along the development pipeline. If, by some tragedy, this does not happen, and CR is found to have a dramatic effect on lifespan on its own (ceteris paribus), even that would still not mean much.

CR is just not viable for probably 80-99% of our population, either because most would not choose that sacrifice to live a handful of years longer, or they would be incapable of the discipline required, or the skill in ensuring the proper nutritional content is met...etc.

This is why, as a personal opinion, I don't like to see CR trumpeted much. For the fortunate few, it may (or may not) have tangible benefits on lifespan. But it can't and will never be a widespread approach.
The science of it is only beneficial to enhance our understanding of aging, and to assist in the search for better approaches.

[jaydfox]

CR is just not viable for probably 80-99% of our population, either because most would not choose that sacrifice to live a handful of years longer, or they would be incapable of the discipline required, or the skill in ensuring the proper nutritional content is met...etc.

This is why, as a personal opinion, I don't like to see CR trumpeted much. For the fortunate few, it may (or may not) have tangible benefits on lifespan. But it can't and will never be a widespread approach.
The science of it is only beneficial to enhance our understanding of aging, and to assist in the search for better approaches.

I disagree, but only a little. I think that CR is still valid, even if it's not doable by 80-99% of the population (I think 99% is a bit pessimistic, but I think that 80% is a bit optimistic, so it's a conservative range).

You see, it should have been obvious to society by now that aging will most likely be cured before the end of this century, cured enough at least to effect escape velocity. People just don't want to see it that way. It would mean changing a whole core part of their view of the world.

Even if by the end of this century, aging isn't cured, that doesn't matter. Anyone who thinks that we can't be adding a year of life expectancy every year, by the end of this century, is out of touch with reality. If anything, the only hurdle to achieving this isn't scientific, it's political: the FDA, and organizations and political philosophies related or similar to the FDA.

A person who is 50 years old in 2100 should expect to live to at least 100 with the medicine available in the year 2100. At least. That's mean life expectancy, not maximum. Maximum should be closer to 130 or 140, easily. However, that means that person has a roughly even chance of living to 2150. That's 145 years from now! There's no way that science won't advance enough in that much time to not add at least 50 years to that person's remaining lifespan. I mean, think about it, we only barely discovered DNA 53 years ago or so!

Logically speaking, it is completely irrational that people don't believe that aging can be cured (for all intents and purposes) by the end of this century. What's even scarier is that it is likely (but not a foregone conclusion) that aging can be cured before 2050, at least for people who aren't alreay elderly, for all intents and purposes (meaning escape velocity, even if aging isn't quite cured yet).

But people can't accept that. The type of people who have the mindset to accept that curing aging is possible in their lifetimes, and that we need to be doing something about it RIGHT NOW, are the kinds of people who can understand and try CR. I myself have tried it, and you're right, it is tough to follow, especially if you start out too strict and essentially wear yourself out. Walk before you run is the lesson there.

It's more difficult when you have a family, and a job, and all sorts of responsibilities that take up your attention. I'm finally restarting it, and this will be my third time. I hope to see it through this time. Because I know what's at stake. Especially since political and social realities leave me convinced that despite our best efforts, acceptance of the possibility of curing aging, and hence the earliest that the political climate will tolerate cries for a War on Aging, is still at least a decade away. Our efforts at ImmInst and at the MPrize can make that time shorter or longer, and I'd like to think that we'll shave at least several years, or in other words, without the MPrize, ImmInst, and similar organizations, such acceptance might be two decades away instead of one, and that's a lot of lost time.

[Karomesis]

I believe the discussions being commited to protandim, even if its efficacy in humans was well documented, could be best spent on more worthwhile endeavors such as cynthia kenyons genetic interventions relating to IGF-1/daf-1 correlations. If indeed she does succeed, and I believe she will, doubling the current average lifespan, then more ambitious studies could be undertaken which strike at the very heart of the aging process, enabling us to reach escape velocity that much sooner and possibly saving millions of lives in the process. Although SENS is a massive undertaking, I think it is definitely achievable in the next few decades, but we won't get there arguing about frivilous companies and their obviously misleading marketing campaigns. CRAN is interesting, as are its mimetics. two of which I am currently practicing: intermittent fasting with no calorie restriction, and metformin. Together these two have lowered my BP to 98/50 and my pulse to 49 along with fasting glucose at 73. Quite paradoxical is the fact that my BMI is 29 and I never do workouts that are more than 30 minutes usually olympic lifitng, yoga, gymnastics, and rowing, along with jumping onto bleachers with 40 lbs on my back all one after the other very quickly. My biomarkers are similar to those who look like walking sticks(CRAN practitioners) although without the ill side effects. It remains to be seen if my regimine will extend my years, but I feel like a million bucks.

[fredv]

the herbs in protadnim (as listed on their website) are:
Proprietary Blend 675 mg:
* Milk thistle extract (Silybum marianum) (seed)
* Bacopa extract (Bacopa monneri) (aerial part)
* Ashwagandha (Withania somnifera) (root)
* Green tea extract (Camellia sinensis) (leaf)
* Turmeric extract (Curcuma longa) (rhizome)

Based on what I have seen this dosage is probably too small.

Thanks again for the info... [thumb]

I've bought what amounts to a 3 month supply of the the above items
for about $75 at the local GNC outlet store...... about a quarter more than it
would cost me for only 1 months worth of the regular Protadnim capsules.
The Clerk's reaction at the GNC..."Wow, somebody's doing a MAJOR detox!"
I told him about the Prodadnim stuff and he was amazed....


Anyway, I've been taking them for a little over a week now and while I can't say I've
noticed anything special, I can also say that I certainly don't feel any worse....
I've also done extensive reading on each 'ingredient' and I'm certain that in
the long run taking these suppliments can only help...... + if I run out of Curry
I can always break one of the yellow caps over some Chicken Vidaloo.... [tung]

Lot of talk about Immortality here I noticed....
Can't really say I have an interest in living 'longer' pre se...
Gimme a 101 years and I'd be happy! [thumb]
But I sure would like to live healhier LONGER..... active into my eighties would be nice...
George Carlin.... wow, can't believe that guy is as sharp as he is and near 70!

Edited by fredv, 22 June 2005 - 05:30 PM.