37 replies to this topic

[niner]

I could as well argue that advocating reseveratrol with one human study while rejectíng la with numerous human studies and decades of human use is inconsistent.

Resveratrol looks good against atherosclerosis in rats. But wait, here is a rabbit study finding bad effects from resveratroll:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....1?dopt=Abstract

Are humans more like rats or more like rabbits? Or not like either one? Does this apply to all the other resveratrol rat studies? Should we reject all resveratrol use because of this study?

But I'm not advocating resveratrol with one human study. I'm choosing it for myself on the basis of a LOT of research, including a lot of use in humans. I'm rejecting lipoic acid for myself on the basis of a lot of things as well, including my own experience with it. I found that it was making me hypotensive, and I feel better when I don't take it. I've also found that I put on more muscle strength when I don't use antioxidants around my exercise routine.

The effect of resveratrol in the hypercholeseremic rabbits is interesting. I'd not seen that one, and found it important enough to add to my resveratrol file. However, it was 13 years ago; that's pretty early days for resveratrol research. I'm not hypercholesteremic, so I'm not sure how applicable the model is. I'm not discounting this work, but I don't have convenient access to the text (thirteen year old, publicly supported science, and the jackals at Elsevier want $31.50 for a copy...) so I can't easily evaluate it.

I'm really hesitant to give a public guarantee of safety for any drug. I have certainly never done that for resveratrol. I guess it could be argued that by saying I use something myself, I'm endorsing it, and there's an implied guarantee in that. I hope most people here are sophisticated enough that we don't need to use disclaimers on every post. We've certainly had numerous lengthy threads about negative aspects of resveratrol and all sorts of other compounds, including lipoic acid.

[maxwatt]

Probabilistically there is no difference between risks and rewards (although there certainly are many illogical ones in human psychology). Doing nothing is also an action.

Now you are veering into a serious misunderstanding of what safety is all about. Most sane people rank damage to their health as more bad than an improvement would be good. Obviously, magnitudes of these effects matter greatly, but the worst case scenario is a hell of a lot more bad than the best case scenario is good. Honestly Blue, I think you argue here just to be contrary (which in fact you recently admitted in another thread). In the resveratrol thread, you were arguing for an extreme level of conservatism, and I thought that you were just conservative by nature. Now you are taking the anti-safety road. It's not consistent.

I could as well argue that advocating reseveratrol with one human study while rejectíng la with numerous human studies and decades of human use is inconsistent.

Resveratrol looks good against atherosclerosis in rats. But wait, here is a rabbit study finding bad effects from resveratroll:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....1?dopt=Abstract

Are humans more like rats or more like rabbits? Or not like either one? Does this apply to all the other resveratrol rat studies? Should we reject all resveratrol use because of this study?

If you are practicing CR then the objectionable rat study is irrelevant or rather on the contrary it finds evidence for taking la together with CR for added effect. On the other hand, if you do practice CR then it is very dubious that a CR mimetic like resveratrol will add anything.

Interesting, but the 1996 study has been contradicted by several later studies in rabbits, including:

Dealcoholized red wine containing known amounts of resveratrol suppresses atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic rabbits without affecting plasma lipid levels.
Wang Z, Zou J, Cao K, Hsieh TC, Huang Y, Wu JM.
Int J Mol Med. 2005 Oct;16(4):533-40.
PMID: 16142383


Sinclair's study on normal-diet mice found that resveratrol plus CR did extend lifespan, which would imply that resveratrol would add to CR for life extension.

[Blue]

Probabilistically there is no difference between risks and rewards (although there certainly are many illogical ones in human psychology). Doing nothing is also an action.

Now you are veering into a serious misunderstanding of what safety is all about. Most sane people rank damage to their health as more bad than an improvement would be good. Obviously, magnitudes of these effects matter greatly, but the worst case scenario is a hell of a lot more bad than the best case scenario is good. Honestly Blue, I think you argue here just to be contrary (which in fact you recently admitted in another thread). In the resveratrol thread, you were arguing for an extreme level of conservatism, and I thought that you were just conservative by nature. Now you are taking the anti-safety road. It's not consistent.

I could as well argue that advocating reseveratrol with one human study while rejectíng la with numerous human studies and decades of human use is inconsistent.

Resveratrol looks good against atherosclerosis in rats. But wait, here is a rabbit study finding bad effects from resveratroll:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....1?dopt=Abstract

Are humans more like rats or more like rabbits? Or not like either one? Does this apply to all the other resveratrol rat studies? Should we reject all resveratrol use because of this study?

If you are practicing CR then the objectionable rat study is irrelevant or rather on the contrary it finds evidence for taking la together with CR for added effect. On the other hand, if you do practice CR then it is very dubious that a CR mimetic like resveratrol will add anything.

Interesting, but the 1996 study has been contradicted by several later studies in rabbits, including:

Dealcoholized red wine containing known amounts of resveratrol suppresses atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic rabbits without affecting plasma lipid levels.
Wang Z, Zou J, Cao K, Hsieh TC, Huang Y, Wu JM.
Int J Mol Med. 2005 Oct;16(4):533-40.
PMID: 16142383


Sinclair's study on normal-diet mice found that resveratrol plus CR did extend lifespan, which would imply that resveratrol would add to CR for life extension.

Interesting rabbit study. Accoding to it it looks like there are things in red wine beside reseveratrol and alcohol that are good since the dealcoholized red wine dose despite having 200x less reseveratrol produced the same effect as reseveratrol. But why do the two rabbit studies differ? Was too much reseveratrol given to the rabbit in the first study since Sinclair's study found that low-dose reseveratrol was better than high dose? What is the safe dose in humans?

Regarding Sinclair's study it used every-other-day feeding. Not ordinary CR. EOD produces high IGF-1. CR low IGF-1. The survival curve for EOD although better than the one for the standard diet likes much worse than CR survival curves from other studies. Low-dose resveratrol (7.6 mg/kg) improved the EOD curve but it still looks worse than CR curves. High dose resveratrol (30.4 mg/kg) did not improve the EOD curve and was thus worse than low dose. The effect of resveratrol on CR remains unknown. But (on-topic again) LA is shown to add to CR (although the study seems rather dubious and its main conclusion regarding lifelong effect of temporary LA regardless of lifelong diet is most likely wrong). See:
http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=342418

Edited by Blue, 22 August 2009 - 08:22 PM.

[Adaptogen]

Sorry to bump such an old thread, but is there actually a risk of damaging tooth enamel from alcar? I like the taste and usually take it as a shot with just a small amount of water.

Another question about enamel..i remember a while back someone mentioning that taurine also could damage enamel. has anyone found anything to back up these claims?

[RWhigham]

Years ago I tried ALA + ALCAR purchased from the company started by Bruce Ames. I didn't continue it long for some long forgotten reason (perhaps this thread). Take a look at Bruce Ames now.

 

After promoting and taking ALA + ALCAR for many years, Bruce Ames does not look any younger to me than his 86 years. https://www.youtube....h?v=wrfxdtXjXHs

 

Jon Barron, on the other hand, who promotes Carnosine + ALCAR (and other things), looks a lot younger than his 68 years. https://www.youtube....h?v=lXUP5EDK1xQ

 

Edited by RWhigham, 16 November 2016 - 09:42 PM.

[Caravaggio]

Jon Barron, on the other hand, who promotes Carnosine + ALCAR (and other things), looks a lot younger than his 68 years. https://www.youtube....h?v=lXUP5EDK1xQ

 

I thought the same but when I looked up when this was recorded, it says: Aired on Ch 10 - KSAZ, in Pheonix, AZ on November 5th, 2006.

 

So he was actually 58 in this video, which is not that spectacular now. Actually all his videos are from 2006.

 

I couldn't find an up to date photo of him. I don't even know if he's still alive, all the articles speak of him in the 3rd person.

[dazed1]

Hi, should i go for 250mg dose or 500? is the 250 better and still will provide ALA synergy?

[Believer]

Hi, should i go for 250mg dose or 500? is the 250 better and still will provide ALA synergy?

Those baby dosages won't do much. Carnitine should be dosed at the minimum of 5g a day. 10-20g if you want to see quicker effects. As for lipoic acid, it has some nasty effects on blood glucose for the non-diabetic.