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

Photo
- - - - -

So much res to take to double running distance for human?


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#31 maxwatt

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

Posted 30 October 2009 - 11:40 AM

I think because I was looking in the current issue I did not find the article, but I think your information was referring to the (then current?) artice from last February:

Specific SIRT1 Activation Mimics Low Energy Levels and Protects against Diet-Induced Metabolic Disorders by Enhancing Fat Oxidation
Cell Metabolism, Volume 9, Issue 2, 4 February 2009, Page 210,
Jérôme N. Feige, Marie Lagouge, Carles Canto, Axelle Strehle, Sander M. Houten, Jill C. Milne, Philip D. Lambert, Chikage Mataki, Peter J. Elliott, Johan Auwerx
PDF (38 K)
Summary

The NAD+-dependent deacetylase SIRT1 controls metabolic processes in response to low nutrient availability. We report the metabolic phenotype of mice treated with SRT1720, a specific and potent synthetic activator of SIRT1 that is devoid of direct action on AMPK. SRT1720 administration robustly enhances endurance running performance and strongly protects from diet-induced obesity and insulin resistance by enhancing oxidative metabolism in skeletal muscle, liver, and brown adipose tissue. These metabolic effects of SRT1720 are mediated by the induction of a genetic network controlling fatty acid oxidation through a multifaceted mechanism that involves the direct deacetylation of PGC-1α, FOXO1, and p53 and the indirect stimulation of AMPK signaling through a global metabolic adaptation mimicking low energy levels. Combined with our previous work on resveratrol, the current study further validates SIRT1 as a target for the treatment of metabolic disorders and characterizes the mechanisms underlying the therapeutic potential of SIRT1 activation.

Author Keywords: HUMDISEASE

Article Outline

Introduction
Results
SRT1720 Is a Potent and Specific Activator of SIRT1
SRT1720 Protects from Diet-Induced Diabesity
SRT1720 Promotes Energy Expenditure in Metabolic Tissues
SRT1720 Administration Mechanistically Mimics Low Energy Levels
Discussion
Experimental Procedures
Chemicals and Reagents
Animal Experiments
Biochemistry and Immunoblotting
Gene Expression Profiling
Oxygen Consumption Measurements
Statistics
Acknowledgements
Supplemental Data
References


Interesting that SRT1720 isstated not to directly activate AMPK, whereas I believe resveratrol does activate it.


Resveratrol stimulates AMP kinase activity in neurons
Here, we show that resveratrol activated AMPK in Neuro2a cells and primary ... Resveratrol-stimulated AMPK activity in neurons depended on LKB1 activity but ...
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1855377 - Similar
by B Dasgupta - 2007 - Cited by 85 - Related articles
Resveratrol protects ROS-induced cell death by activating AMPK in ...
Our results indicated that the treatment of resveratrol activates AMPK and decreases cell death caused by H2O2-treated H9c2 cells. To confirm these results, ...
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2478493 - Similar
by JT Hwang - 2008 - Cited by 14 - Related articles - All 4 versions
Figure 2 : Resveratrol improves health and survival of mice on a ...
Nov 16, 2006 ... Areas under the curves (AUC) were significantly reduced by resveratrol treatment. e, Activation of AMPK by resveratrol in CHO cells. ...
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/.../fig.../nature05354_F2.html - Similar
FuturePundit: AMPK Enzyme Declines In Aging Muscles
Feb 6, 2007 ... Okay, here's yet another reason to take resveratrol. The fact that CR boosts AMPK suggests that boosting AMPK might provide a net benefit. ...
www.futurepundit.com/archives/004059.html - Cached - Similar



#32 opendoor

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 October 2009 - 01:48 PM

I think because I was looking in the current issue I did not find the article, but I think your information was referring to the (then current?) artice from last February:


This isn't it. No mention of the little micees running twice as far with SRT1720.

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

#33 maxwatt

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

Posted 30 October 2009 - 01:58 PM

I think because I was looking in the current issue I did not find the article, but I think your information was referring to the (then current?) artice from last February:


This isn't it. No mention of the little micees running twice as far with SRT1720.

Reread the abstract, above; it specifically states "SRT1720 administration robustly enhances endurance running performance . . . ."

#34 opendoor

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • 0

Posted 30 October 2009 - 02:55 PM

You dont have the paper to confirm the distance?

#35 maxwatt

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

Posted 30 October 2009 - 03:36 PM

You dont have the paper to confirm the distance?


http://www.sciencedi...139a88e6c73e837

#36 opendoor

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • 0

Posted 31 October 2009 - 12:04 AM

http://www.sciencedi...139a88e6c73e837


It costs $30 to download.
Does anyone have the part of the paper which mentions mice on 500mg of SRT1720 ran twice as far and lived longer than the control mice?

#37 maxwatt

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

Posted 31 October 2009 - 01:58 AM

The paperis posted in the members section HERE which is a good reason for joining IMMINST as a member vs remaining a registered user.

From the supplemental data, the time to exhaustion was 2300 meters for the SRT1720 treated mice, versus 900 meters for the controls.

#38 opendoor

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • 0

Posted 31 October 2009 - 02:31 AM

The paperis posted in the members section HERE which is a good reason for joining IMMINST as a member vs remaining a registered user.

From the supplemental data, the time to exhaustion was 2300 meters for the SRT1720 treated mice, versus 900 meters for the controls.


I don't get it. If you are a member, then you must have seen this in February or March but a month ago said you were waiting for a new paper by Auwerx:
"I've started by looking for Auwerx new paper on SRT1720, supposedly published this week in Cell Metabolism. It is not on the website, or in the TOC of the current issue (Sept 2). It may be that the October issue has not yet been published online, andthat is what they are referring to. Thee are a number of issues to clear up, and the paper will be needed."

Possible new paper:
Mice without SRT1720 ran for roughly half a mile. Mice given 100 mg ran roughly seven-tenths of a mile. And mice on 500 mg of SRT1720 were able to run a full mile, twice the distance of untreated mice.


So the old paper has SRT1720 mice running 1.5 miles and the control mice running 0.6 miles -- three times as far.
The possible new paper has SRT1720 mice running about 1.0 miles and control mice running about 0.5 miles -- twice as far.

1) Were the SRT1720 mice getting a higher dose than 500mg in the old study?
2) Any idea what the new study is testing that differs from the old study?

#39 maxwatt

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

Posted 31 October 2009 - 03:06 AM

One of the links in the original post in this thread stated

The research, led by Johan Auwerx at the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL) in Switzerland, was published this week in the journal Cell Metabolism.

so I began looking for the "new" paper. But it was an outdated link, apparently. I apologize. I was not the only one to assume it would be a new paper rather than one I'd already looked at. Auwerx mice on resveratrol received only 400 mg/kg and had a similar performance boost.

So do people on a gram or so a day, according to those who've tried it. I would point out that though performance endurance improves, if one is not training regularly, one will be sore the next day. :p

#40 opendoor

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • 0

Posted 31 October 2009 - 10:43 AM

One of the links in the original post in this thread stated

The research, led by Johan Auwerx at the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL) in Switzerland, was published this week in the journal Cell Metabolism.

so I began looking for the "new" paper. But it was an outdated link, apparently. I apologize. I was not the only one to assume it would be a new paper rather than one I'd already looked at. Auwerx mice on resveratrol received only 400 mg/kg and had a similar performance boost.


OK, I see now, but was the original post then incorrect about how far the mice ran? I can see he may have rounded or baesd it on memory, but that is a 50% difference. I also why that didn't get more coverage at the time. Maybe people were used to mice running further on treadmills, but their seem to be important differences between the SRT1720 treadmill study and high dose resveratrol study a couple of years ago. Also, I thought these mice were fed normal diets and that SRT1720 mice lived longer. Is that also in the paper?

Anyone have an idea when the next Sinclair paper is coming? Sirtis said in August several will be published over the next several months. The SRT501 cancer study will be finished in December. That might be interesting.

Edited by opendoor, 31 October 2009 - 10:44 AM.


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

#41 Supierce

  • Guest
  • 94 posts
  • 28
  • Location:Vermont

Posted 31 October 2009 - 02:16 PM

Regarding Sinclair's paper, he has created a new resveratrol forum at http://www.resforum.org/

It summarizes his current thinking, so maybe we'll see updates there.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users