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

Photo

A few ideas for change.

vimmortal

  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 ajnast4r

  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 148
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:18 PM


I'm putting my ideas here, rather than in each individual thread to ensure adequate feedback on all items.

As of now my ideas are change are:

Removing all carotenoids, including the beta-carotene, lutein, lycopene, etc. supplemental carotenoids have consistantly been linked to various types of cancer and imo, are not worth the risk. Also anyone eating even a moderate amount of fruits and veggies will blow the DRI for vitamin A out the window. I'm open to discussion on both increasing or removing the retinol portion.

removing choline unless anyone knows of a supplemental form not sold as a noot, re: cdp, gpc, etc

cutting the b12 down to a DRI dosage, 2.4 mg.

cutting k1 dosage to 1/2 DRI, 60 mcg.

cutting selenium doage to 1/2 DRI, 27.5 mcg.

cutting vitamin E dosage to DRI, 22.5 iu.

open to discussion on switching chromium to a yeast derived.

labeling of vitamin E amounts (both tocopherols and tocotrienols) must be listed individually. simply stating 'mixed' is unacceptable.


consider alternate forms of magnesium to reduce pill amount. citrate, aspartate.
  • dislike x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#2 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,387 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 09 February 2012 - 10:34 PM

Interesting that supplemental carotenoids have been linked to cancer, but those who "blow their vitamin A intake through the roof" with reasonable vegetable consumption (like me) do not have increased cancer risk (not that I am aware of). What is going on here? What am I missing?

Edited by Mind, 09 February 2012 - 10:35 PM.


#3 ajnast4r

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, F@H
  • 3,925 posts
  • 148
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 12 February 2012 - 02:18 AM

this has only been observed from supplemental carotenoids, not from food as far as i know. carotenoids from food have been consistantly correlated with better health outcomes, which is where a lot of the supplements and testing got their research push
  • like x 1

#4 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:16 AM

What is your rationale behind decreasing B12, selenium and E amounts? I'm not saying those doses are unacceptable, as if taking a partial dose of the multi (which most will do), that is probably what most will end up getting anyway (if using Vimmortal 1.0). If reducing further, they may end up with baby-sized doses.

I thought the general idea was for full dose to be RDA (or AI-ish), or thereabouts, meaning it's safe at a full dose, yet optimal dosing for most will be a partial dose. Sort of like... full dose won't kill anyone, but anyone who eats normal food should take partial dosing.

I'm fine with removing choline and the carotenoids, as yeah, A is super easy to get via diet. But has supplemental lycopene been linked to increased cancer in any studies? I recall lutein and of course beta carotene, but don't recall any on lycopene.

I also like the idea of looking into alternative forms of mag, but don't know what forms are the most compact, besides oxide.

#5 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,387 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 22 February 2012 - 10:05 PM

I am with nameless on going with 100% RDA on many of the nutrients and allowing people to take partial doses if they like. What is the rationale behind decreasing B12, Selenium, and E?
  • like x 2

#6 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,277 posts
  • 397
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 26 February 2012 - 06:56 PM

I would add 50-150% DRI of organic mixed cartenoids. High doses of cartenoids are linked to cancer of the lungs, but they are also linked to reversal of certain precancerous conditions, particularly of the skin, stomach, and other mucous membranes. Overall, synthetic cartenoids are bad for health, and mild doses of organic cartenoids (whether from home-made meals, or from pure extracts) are ideal for non-smokers.

#7 MrHappy

  • Guest, Moderator
  • 1,815 posts
  • 403
  • Location:Australia

Posted 26 February 2012 - 08:55 PM

In response to carotenoids, why all the fuss? High doses of almost anything can be carcinogenic.

Since they are antioxidants, they should be a double-edged sword for cancer, ie. they are a protective until you have a tumor, at which time they increase tumor health/growth. That being said, it doesn't appear to completely true for carotenoids:
http://www.iupac.org...f/7408x1451.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/10648274/

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/12549764/

They DO have an increased risk of cancer when associated with alcohol, though:
http://m.alcalc.oxfo...t/35/4/355.full

Vitamin A, like iron, also accumulates in the body and isn't excreted. Excess vitamin A will show up as flaky skin, etc.





#8 niner

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

Posted 26 February 2012 - 09:32 PM

I worry about supplemental carotenoids. In the VITAL study, risk of lung cancer was increased, even among nonsmokers, for oral retinoids. (factor of 2 for lutein). Contrary to previously popular belief, lycopene seems to be a negative for prostate cancer. Other recent references find it neutral, while one finds benefit from lycopene in people with a particular MNSOD SNP.

Regarding doses in general, I would prefer to see DRI of most things, so that people wanting to reduce dose can do so easily, and people wanting the full DRI don't have to take a double dose.

#9 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,277 posts
  • 397
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 27 February 2012 - 04:28 AM

Choline is considered an essential nutrition by the USA, and it is naturally abundant in lecithin, among other foods. As well as its suspected role in the brain, it seems to play a role in the liver and digestion. Adding 50-500mg of lecithin would be bad for people with soy allergies, and might exasperate trimethylaminuria. It's a tough call.

#10 e Volution

  • Guest
  • 937 posts
  • 280
  • Location:spaceship earth

Posted 27 February 2012 - 04:56 AM

I really need to do more investigation before I had a firm position, but I too am wary of supplemented carotenoids. Add to that they are non-essential and I think they should be left out.

I also agree overall we should be aiming for as close to 100% RDI where possible. This then makes it's most likely common usage as a partial dosage to cover all the bases more practical.

#11 niner

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

Posted 27 February 2012 - 05:03 AM

I think it would be a good idea for us to list forms and amounts of each nutrient that we are currently using. I was just looking at the vimmortal label, and noticed that B9 was listed at "hydro tetrafolinic acid", which I don't think is a real molecule. Does someone (ajna?) have the final spreadsheet that we worked off of for V1? It would be really nice if we could get densities and costs for the components as well, so we could intelligently address issues of high pill count and high cost that have generated a lot of complaints. I'm not arguing for cheaping out here, but am looking to avoid making errors that seriously raise price while adding negligible value.

I'm finding it a little hard to follow the discussion with it spread over 50 threads. I think we should try to tighten up our process, perhaps by merging forms and amounts for each nutrient, and perhaps closing or combining discussion on some of the non-controversial nutrients, (assuming there are any).
  • like x 1

#12 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,387 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:45 PM

Sorry about the proliferation of threads. The aim was to give the different aspects of each nutrient it's own hearing, but I can see how it can be time consuming as well. We will create a spreadsheet like last time in the expert panel discussions. I expect that for some of the controversial nutrients we will probably come back to the community for a final vote, to keep it in or throw it out. The threads will be closed on Thursday, but if anyone thinks the controversial ones should be kept open, we can do that too.

#13 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,277 posts
  • 397
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 28 February 2012 - 03:00 AM

Sorry about the proliferation of threads. The aim was to give the different aspects of each nutrient it's own hearing, but I can see how it can be time consuming as well. We will create a spreadsheet like last time in the expert panel discussions. I expect that for some of the controversial nutrients we will probably come back to the community for a final vote, to keep it in or throw it out. The threads will be closed on Thursday, but if anyone thinks the controversial ones should be kept open, we can do that too.

I don't see why we should close the polls of the controversial nutrients, except if the expert panel absolutely needs the vote tally to be unchanging.


What follows is only my (incomplete) opinion, but I hope the expert panel comes up with a similar grouping/I save them a bit of time:

These seem to me to be the most controversial ones (omit them or keep them? which forms? what dose?): Vitamins A, D, E, K, Calcium, Chromium, Iodine, Copper, Zinc, Magneisum, Silicon, Selenium, Molybdenum, Choline, Lithium, Lycopene, Lutein, and PQQ.

Doses & forms are controversial: Vitamins B2 (Riboflavin, may increase oxidative), B3 (Niacin), B6 (Pyridoxine), B12 (Cobalamin), Manganese, Boron, Vanadium.
Only forms are controversial: Vitamin B1 (Thiamine), B9 (Folic Acid).
Only the doses are controversial: Vitamins C, B5 (cofactor to acetylcholine).

Very little controversy: Vitamins B7 (Biotin).

Edited by dasheenster, 28 February 2012 - 03:02 AM.


#14 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:37 PM

I agree with Niner regarding the number of threads. I even forgot about this one, for instance.

A million threads, polls, some buried in sub categories... I've lost track. I've even lost track of threads I posted in.

It seems we have less active people taking part this time, compared to last (or maybe it just seems that way) so condensing everything probably would have made more sense. Although if you plan to close all threads already, I guess it doesn't matter.

I too wanted to see the densities and costs per ingredient, but I guess that isn't happening.
  • like x 2

#15 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,387 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:31 PM

The problem is that I am not a supplement guru. No one else was going to move this forward, so it was up to me. I did what I thought would be best. It is my job to be active here at Longecity, so I spend a couple hours everyday in the forums, and keeping track of the 2.0 threads was not a problem, but I did not consider the limited time of others. As far as the densities and cost, that did not come up much in the 1.0 discussions until it moved to the expert panel, so I thought we would do that again this time.

I apologize for it not being set-up more logically and user-friendly. There was not as much participation this time around, probably because many people were fairly happy with the first formulation. There were not too many controversial nutrients.

#16 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,387 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:34 PM

I like how dasheenster summarized what has been discussed in the various threads. Would it be advisable to keep one discussion open to the community for one more week to just focus our attention on what has been learned about the community preferences for Vimmortal 2.0 - maybe create a master table or spreadsheet to peruse? Or would that just open a bigger can of worms - bringing too many chefs into the kitchen - delay things too much?

#17 Anthony_Loera

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

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:17 PM

The issue with pricing (ingredient) is if we don't have a solid formulation, we can't get real accurate pricing.

Say we need 100kg of one thing, and 1kg of another... I will likely get better pricing for the 100kg order, and maybe have to pay premium for the 1kg ... because it's such a low amount.

Once we have the formulation set, I can request pricing and play with it a bit, to see if a higher purity of something is required while a lower purity (or off brand ) ingredient of something else can be acceptable.

It's a pain, trust me.. and takes time, but it really should be done after the formulation is coming close to be agreed upon.

A

#18 Anthony_Loera

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

Posted 29 February 2012 - 11:34 PM

For example, I just got an email from a no-name brand of B12:

Cyanocobalamin (B12)
1 - 4kg $2,495.00/kg
5kg + $2,475.00/kg

If we are looking at minimums for 00 Licaps we may be looking at $36-$64 per /1000 capsules (minimum 100,000)

Without bottles, labels, and anything else...(not even any ingredients),
we would be looking at 120 capsules bottled for about $5.28 - $7 on the average.

Now 1kg of pure B12 has about 41 million servings of b12 at 24mcg... getting less than 1kg (say about 3 grams if it were pure) would incur a premium price which I find almost intolerable... Most things we buy to be used for mcg, usually incur a ridiculous premium price, specially if we only try to make 100,000 capsules.

I hate considering buying 1kg, only to use 3 grams of it... anyway, that is my small rant... but knowing the formulation ahead of time allows for the most accurate pricing. Getting quotes now on ingredients, may not work very well.

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 29 February 2012 - 11:58 PM.


#19 nameless

  • Guest
  • 2,268 posts
  • 137

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:07 AM

As for prices and densities, I meant it more in regard to the more expensive ingredients or things that are being considered dropped. And just general estimates, it doesn't have to be exact numbers.

Such as K2. Would there be a big cost savings dropping it completely? Or alternatively, how much would increasing MK-7 levels + adding MK4 add to the final price?

What are the price ranges for magnesium, and which forms are the most dense? Would going with a denser form (and perhaps lesser amount) significantly decrease the number of capsules and final price?

Folate could be another one that depending on form, may be pricey.

Those are just examples, but that sort of information may be useful and influence the polls as to whether certain ingredients may be included at all. I.E. Vimmortal at $30/month w/K2 + mag vs Vimmortal at $15/month without... in certain situations, it may be better to drop an ingredient or two if if significantly lowers the final price.

Again, the above are examples/guesses and have nothing to do with accurate pricing. But you should see what I am getting at.

@Mind I didn't mean my comments to be a knock against you, as I am sure you are doing the best you can. I think you may have overestimated the number of people who would be involved though, at least in regard to organization. I'm unsure if we have less people taking part due to people being happy with Vimmortal, to be honest.

I think we have less people involved simply because of, well, less people in general -- a lot of the people who were really active in the supplement forums once upon a time (FunkOdyssey, Krillin, Ajnast, Blue, Kismet) rarely post anymore. And they also were some of the most knowledgeable around.

Edited by nameless, 01 March 2012 - 12:13 AM.

  • like x 1

#20 niner

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

Posted 01 March 2012 - 04:20 AM

If we are looking at minimums for 00 Licaps we may be looking at $36-$64 per /1000 capsules (minimum 100,000)


Thanks Anthony, that's very helpful information. The main reason for Licaps would be to separate out the oil-soluble ingredients into an oil-based formulation. If we made the minimum, and used two caps for a dose (just a guess; one might be enough), then we would have 50,000 doses / 30 doses per bottle = 1667 bottles. Is that a plausible run? This would cost between $3600 and $6400, depending on what I'm not sure. We would also need 1667 labeled bottles. My wild guess as to the cost of that is about another two grand. Using that as a number, it would cost $5600/1667 to $8400/1667, or $3.36 to $5.04 over and above the cost of the dry formulation, perhaps minus a bit for the lower pill count and/or small pill size of the remaining dry ingredients, and plus some amount for the oil. This actually seems pretty reasonable. It might also let us use a much cheaper version of some of the ingredients, because we wouldn't need special dry lipid carrier formulations; we could just use the straight compound. Considering that, it's at least possible (until Anthony bursts my bubble?) that the cost differential could be close to a wash, depending on how much we might save on ingredients.

A remaining question would be the compatibility of all the oil-soluble ingredients in a single solution.

#21 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,387 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 01 March 2012 - 10:18 PM

Just to expound upon what dasheenster started above, here are the well supported Ingredients with over 80% of votes in favor:

B1 100%
B2 100%
B3 100%
B5 100%
B9 100%
B12 100%
Boron 100%
Vitamin K 100%
Molybdenum 100%
Chromium 100%
Mixed Tocotrienols 95%
Selenium 94%
Vitamin E 93%
Vitamin C 92%
B6 92%
Silicon 90%
Biotin 90%
Zinc 90%
Magnesium 87%
Iodine 85%
Vitamin A 82%
Lycopene 80%
_________________________

Those with a bit less support but still positive
Vitamin D 79%
Lithium 73 %
_________________________

Voted down, 50% or less support
Lutein 50%
Choline 36%
Copper 36%
_________________________

One extra ingredient suggested
PQQ - 2 comments in favor (no poll)

Edited by Mind, 01 March 2012 - 10:20 PM.


#22 e Volution

  • Guest
  • 937 posts
  • 280
  • Location:spaceship earth

Posted 07 March 2012 - 04:12 AM

I hope what I am about to say doesn't just confuse the decision further but I have been following this whole process and not super close but close enough to do some voting and a couple comments.

For myself it is a little confusing where we are at, all the various discussions taking place, whats settled whats in the air.

Perhaps we should organise a high-level LINEAR process with clear dates broken down in a nice simple diagram to give this project a flow and deadline.

So something I just made up for example:
March: Vote for all nutrients to be included in the formulation. Forget dosage, forget form, just all the things that will be listed on the ingredients. At the end of March it is finished and locked in. We move on to next step.
April: Vote for the dosages of all the previously agreed upon nutrients
May: Vote for the forms of each previously agreed upon nutrient and dosage
June: Start polishing the finished product (read: start making small compromises). Have a prototype formulation ready, or Vimmortal in BETA mode. Then begin a debate about all the various complains and suggestions about what the final formulation is looking like. This is where we could also say "OK we wanted magnesium glycinate 200mg, but it is going to cause us to go from 3 to 4 pills, so perhaps we change the form to citrate or the dosage to 150mg it back down to 3 pills." etc etc.
July: Final deadline. Formulation goes out to manufacturers to get made.

Then we have this linear transparent direction to move towards. Like I said I feel like I am "involved" in this project, but I have no idea what is going on. Now it is easy to say "well you obviously havent read X" but that is not my failing, it is a failing of this process being made easy and open so that the mulitde of people like myself can throw in our 2c without having to dig though 100 threads.

#23 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,287 posts
  • 1,783
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 21 March 2012 - 05:15 PM

All:
Coming in late on this, hoping to avoid a premature decision:

As of now my ideas are change are:

Removing all carotenoids, including the beta-carotene, lutein, lycopene, etc. supplemental carotenoids have consistantly been linked to various types of cancer and imo, are not worth the risk.


I don't believe there's any evidence that supplemtnal lycopene has been linked to increased cancer risk; lutein, as noted elsewhere on VITAL, was only thus linked at very high doses. On lycopene:

lycopene seems to be a negative for prostate cancer. Other recent references find it neutral, while one finds benefit from lycopene in people with a particular MNSOD SNP.


I wouldn't put any real weight on the first study above. First, it was a case-control study, which is a weak methodology and not justified in a relatively common disease like PCA. Second, and more importantly, they didn't actually even evaluate outcomes for prostate cancer: they found an outcome for PSA, which (as USPTFS and multiple bodies have concluded) is useless for screening of prostate cancer (as opposed to its diagnostic and monitoring uses, which were not addressed in this study). For all we know, lycopene raises PSA for reasons that have nothing to do with PCA, or that are even protective. Also, even if there were a real PCA signal here, it might yet be protective: some nutrients appear to be unassociated with, or increase the incidence of, non-life-threatening, 'indolent' cancers, but decrease the risk of aggressive cancer (or vice-versa), and serum/plasma lycopene is one of them: plasma "lycopene and the sum of carotenoids ... were not associated with the risk of localized disease but were inversely associated with the risk of advanced disease. The risk of advanced disease for men in the highest fifth of plasma concentrations compared with men in the lowest fifth was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.19, 0.88) for lycopene and 0.35 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.78) for the sum of carotenoids" (here).

And also, even if (again) PSA in this study is a real signal of undiagnosed prostate tumors, retrospective bias is especially likely here, as people who have reason to suspect they might have PCA are (after all the promotion by supplement hawkers and Hunt's) all the more likely to start upping their tomato product intake and/or taking lycopene supplements. The same is true, to a lesser extent, of age, as the authors note, along with other reasons to not take their finding too seriously:

The finding that lycopene was positively associated with a tPSA threshold level is inconsistent with current knowledge [31–42]. Previous studies have mostly implied either no association or a protective effect of lycopene against PCa. For instance, a recent meta-analysis of seven studies suggested that serum lycopene was inversely related to PCa risk [RR = 0.74 (0.59–0.92)] [43]. In our study, it is plausible that the distinct relationships observed between serum levels of lycopene and tPSA before and after adjustment for selected characteristics are due to strong confounding by at least one of the variables that we adjusted for. We performed separate analyses for each of the selected characteristics and identified age as being the strongest confounder, based on changes in the estimated odds ratios for the hypothesized relationship. In addition, adjusting for age, but not for other characteristics, was sufficient to change the direction of the relationship between lycopene and tPSA from inverse in the unadjusted model to direct in the adjusted model. In our study, unadjusted results overwhelmingly support an inverse association between lycopene and tPSA level, as hypothesized. However, this association changed to positive after simply adjusting for age. Confounding bias by older age is plausible as it is associated with both higher PSA levels and potentially higher lycopene intake (through supplements or diet) as a consequence of prostate health awareness. These relationships would result in an upward bias, as is seen in the adjusted models.

Major epidemiologic studies of the inverse association between lycopene intake and PCa were published in the late 1990s and early 2000s, which could have influenced lycopene intake among older men with higher PSA levels (and perhaps undiagnosed, underlying disease) in the current study period from 2001–2006. Furthermore, the effect of lycopene at the 2.5 ng/ml threshold was shown to be different from its effect at the 4 and 10 ng/ml thresholds of tPSA. This finding implies the need for further investigation into the possibility of a non-linear relationship between lycopene and tPSA levels.

According to Erdman and colleagues [44], lycopene has been shown to be the most potent in vitro antioxidant of all carotenoids tested, yet in vivo studies do not support the hypothesis that lycopene (found at low concentrations in animal and human tissues) can protect against PCa through its antioxidative properties [44]. The authors suggest alternative mediators of the protective effect of lycopene on screen-detected PCa, namely apoptosis, cell cycle inhibition, insulin-like growth factor 1 axis, gap junction communication, androgen status, detoxification enzymes, and C-reactive protein [44].


The 2004 meta-analysis the cite (which is the latest systematic evaluation of the evidence AFAICS) found that "Our results show that tomato products may play a role in the prevention of prostate cancer. However, this effect is modest and restricted to high amounts of tomato intake." Later studies include the EPIC serum lycopene study above and this one, and my impression (and evidently the investigators in this newest study) are on balance favorable.

Also anyone eating even a moderate amount of fruits and veggies will blow the DRI for vitamin A out the window.


Sure, but the same is true for very nearly everything else. remember my COM analysis of a Big Mac, large fries, and a chocolate milkshake. This is inevitable with multivitamins; we have to either abandon the project, or accept that people will need to take a partial dose and tweak, and still be less than perfectly balanced.

#24 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,387 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 21 March 2012 - 07:40 PM

I hope what I am about to say doesn't just confuse the decision further but I have been following this whole process and not super close but close enough to do some voting and a couple comments.

For myself it is a little confusing where we are at, all the various discussions taking place, whats settled whats in the air.

Perhaps we should organise a high-level LINEAR process with clear dates broken down in a nice simple diagram to give this project a flow and deadline.

So something I just made up for example:
March: Vote for all nutrients to be included in the formulation. Forget dosage, forget form, just all the things that will be listed on the ingredients. At the end of March it is finished and locked in. We move on to next step.
April: Vote for the dosages of all the previously agreed upon nutrients
May: Vote for the forms of each previously agreed upon nutrient and dosage
June: Start polishing the finished product (read: start making small compromises). Have a prototype formulation ready, or Vimmortal in BETA mode. Then begin a debate about all the various complains and suggestions about what the final formulation is looking like. This is where we could also say "OK we wanted magnesium glycinate 200mg, but it is going to cause us to go from 3 to 4 pills, so perhaps we change the form to citrate or the dosage to 150mg it back down to 3 pills." etc etc.
July: Final deadline. Formulation goes out to manufacturers to get made.

Then we have this linear transparent direction to move towards. Like I said I feel like I am "involved" in this project, but I have no idea what is going on. Now it is easy to say "well you obviously havent read X" but that is not my failing, it is a failing of this process being made easy and open so that the mulitde of people like myself can throw in our 2c without having to dig though 100 threads.


I appreciate your input e Volution, but unfortunately for this time around we just have to move forward. I probably did not organize everything perfectly but there was no one else to move this forward. I just followed the process from last time. The problem with splitting up the problem linearly is that many many opinions are contingent upon simultaneous multiple aspects of each nutrient. Person A would vote yes on nutrient X if the dosage was Y. Person B would vote no on nutrient X if the form was Q. You get the picture.

Edited by Mind, 08 May 2012 - 09:07 PM.


#25 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,387 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:33 PM

Just an update. The expert panel is very close to a final formulation that will be offered for manufacture. There are some minor issues about the proportions of vitamin A related constituents and vitamin K.

Vimmortal 2.0 is looking very similar to version 1.0

The main change. No Choline.

Lithium is in.

Lutein will probably be in, but in a very small amount because it is generally included with standard caretenoid mixtures.

Copper will probably be in, in a small amount.

#26 gamesguru

  • Guest
  • 3,277 posts
  • 397
  • Location:coffeelake.intel.int

Posted 21 June 2012 - 01:47 AM

Any updates?

Specifically, can you say what the expert panel put together so far?

Edited by dasheenster, 21 June 2012 - 01:48 AM.


#27 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,387 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 21 June 2012 - 07:03 AM

No updates in the past month. I will post the proposed formulation soon. We are still in limbo with regards to when and how it will be manufactured.

#28 kevinseven11

  • Guest
  • 385 posts
  • 40
  • Location:Texas

Posted 22 January 2013 - 01:17 AM

Cocoa extract with theobromine reduced. (Water extract)

The chemicals in this are great for everything, brain, heart, and skin.

#29 August59

  • Guest
  • 66 posts
  • 2

Posted 14 February 2013 - 06:17 AM

For example, I just got an email from a no-name brand of B12:

Cyanocobalamin (B12)
1 - 4kg $2,495.00/kg
5kg + $2,475.00/kg

If we are looking at minimums for 00 Licaps we may be looking at $36-$64 per /1000 capsules (minimum 100,000)

Without bottles, labels, and anything else...(not even any ingredients),
we would be looking at 120 capsules bottled for about $5.28 - $7 on the average.

Now 1kg of pure B12 has about 41 million servings of b12 at 24mcg... getting less than 1kg (say about 3 grams if it were pure) would incur a premium price which I find almost intolerable... Most things we buy to be used for mcg, usually incur a ridiculous premium price, specially if we only try to make 100,000 capsules.

I hate considering buying 1kg, only to use 3 grams of it... anyway, that is my small rant... but knowing the formulation ahead of time allows for the most accurate pricing. Getting quotes now on ingredients, may not work very well.

A


When was the decision made to use "cobalmin", instead of methylcobalmin? Same goes for using "folic acid", instead of "5-MTHF". I understand trying to cut pricing, but not to the point of including somehing useless. Folinic acid is not a good choice as it is competitive with "5-MTHF". Could not include either one and suggest sublinguial methylcobalmin and by 5-MTHF as a seperate supplement. Going backwards instead of forwards?

#30 Synchro

  • Guest
  • 58 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Arizona

Posted 06 June 2014 - 12:41 AM

Member, physician, fanatic about rejuvenation, just skimmed this topic.

 

Here's my take: the list is plain old same old same old.

 

This is not a list of serious anti-aging ingredients.

 

I do do custom formulating, and I can access things that actually hold real promise, such as astragaloside IV, cycloastragenol, GDF-11, etc, but:

 

A. anyone who's interested must accept that we're talking cutting edge. That means risk. That means if you want gold-standard guarantees, wait twenty years. Me, I ain't got 20 years, so I am willing to accept risk in order to take advantate of cutting edge.

 

B. There would have to be a club structure formed to access some of these legally. I can't formulate a commercial supplement formula containg GDF-11; first, it has to be injected, second it's patented out the wazoo. However, a properly formed club can provide a framework wherein members could gain access to substances they otherwise could not get. If they inject, that's a personal matter that is not the club's business, and it's actually not illegal, so long as it's strictly personal choice and not organizationally promoted. The FDA does not yet control everything that goes on in a person's life behind closed doors, although God knows they wish they could. Note that we're not talking illegal or controlled substances - the club is not for the purpose of providing heroin or other controlled substances (DOH!!!) - but the club can be a vehicle for accessing cutting edge substances for personal use that cannot be commercialized at the present time due to patents.

 

There is a difference.

 

Anyway, my two cents. Sorry, don't mean to be offensive, but the reason this thread has died, I think, is that the list of proposed ingredients is trivial; it's a "safe" list for maintenance of nutrition, and doesn't have the slightest thing to do with reversing aging. Any list born of a committee, where some sort of safety is promised, is doomed to triviality.

 

But if anyone wishes to take me up on my idea of a club for access to truly cutting edge rejuvenating substances, I have the resources to gain access to virtually anything that is not illegal. Again, please notice there's a vast difference between illegal and patent infringement; the former is criminal, the latter is civil, and with the appropriate club structure there are not civil grounds for patent infringement lawsuits.

 

Very Best, Synchro







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: vimmortal

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users