LONGECITY

Who takes chronic doses of vitamin C OR ANY VITAMIN on an empty stomach? That's just silly.

By the way, what's silly is advocating mega dosing vitamins the way you do. You're free to mega dose all you want but openly advocating mega dosing supplements in the manner you do is the type of irresponsible behavior that will ultimately lead to the FDA intervening and supplement regulation....and not in a good way.

One person's megadose is another's standard daily dose. With Vitamin C, since many mammals make 10g a day and 10x that when injured or sick, I have no problem with taking 2-4 grams a day and more at times (Liposomal). I take vitamin E to correspond with the NASA dosages (approximate). Mostly mixed tocopherols, but some dry vitamin E tocopherol acetate and some rice rice tocotrienols as well. I've never had ANY side effects form large doses of mixed tocopherols. Carlson E Gems Elite is a good product.

The threat of removal of supplements has been around since the 80's. Nothing ever happens. They might have had a chance before it became a multi-billion dollar industry. Now, I presume, the vitamin companies have their own lobbyists. And if they don't, well, I'm available for that job! :-)

If I was in charge, I'd hire you Zorba.

I was given the "Activist of the Year" award by the second largest lobbying group in the USA for my work in helping pass a federal law that protected consumers from FDA trying to make dietary supplements into prescription items in 1994 - The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), so I know FDA well, as we beat them at their own game.

This is no longer 1994. It's no longer if, but when the FDA takes over. There is definitely going to be more government regulation in the years to come. In case you weren't aware, regulation no longer requires a vote of congress...but simple Presidential decree....hold on tight...

http://cnsnews.com/n...-average-68-day

The authors did not discuss an upper limit, therefore, as usual, more is better,

And that is twisted logic. More is seldom better....everything is either a bell or inverse U curve where any amount beyond the "sweet spot" is not "diminishing returns" but headed back in the direction of as bad or worse than deficiency. Dosage studies of everything ever tested have shown a curve relationship....it just doesn't keep going up linearly to infinity. And nothing is non-toxic or side effect free...it's always relative to dose. The poison is always in the dose...of everything. And "More is better" is not only bad advice but dangerous advice.

Today i put a little kick in with my evening C60 tablespoon.

A
Edited by Anthony_Loera, 13 November 2012 - 01:55 AM.

I was given the "Activist of the Year" award by the second largest lobbying group in the USA for my work in helping pass a federal law that protected consumers from FDA trying to make dietary supplements into prescription items in 1994 - The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), so I know FDA well, as we beat them at their own game.

This is no longer 1994. It's no longer if, but when the FDA takes over. There is definitely going to be more government regulation in the years to come. In case you weren't aware, regulation no longer requires a vote of congress...but simple Presidential decree....hold on tight...

http://cnsnews.com/n...-average-68-day

The authors did not discuss an upper limit, therefore, as usual, more is better,

And that is twisted logic. More is seldom better....everything is either a bell or inverse U curve where any amount beyond the "sweet spot" is not "diminishing returns" but headed back in the direction of as bad or worse than deficiency. Dosage studies of everything ever tested have shown a curve relationship....it just doesn't keep going up linearly to infinity. And nothing is non-toxic or side effect free...it's always relative to dose. The poison is always in the dose...of everything. And "More is better" is not only bad advice but dangerous advice.

Are you trying to be argumentative, taking my words out of context? I said "more is better up to a point of diminishing returns."

More is better when seeking an optimal dose - up to a point of diminishing returns when we are considering nutrients that have little or no potential for toxicity. Dose comparison studies consistently show the same effect. A threshold dose where optimal effects occur, topping out at a point where more gives little more benefit but begins to cost considerably more.

You should study the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine's No Observed Adverse Effect Levels (NOAEL) and Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Levels (LOAEL). These are the conservative doses that the preponderance of scientific literature shows where safe, effective doses are confirmed.

I feel like I'm reading the words of a Tea Party teenager who is trying to fight with someone.
Mellow out and join the community.

Are you trying to be argumentative, taking my words out of context? I said "more is better up to a point of diminishing returns."

Never took your words out of context. And I'm not the one being argumentative.

I feel like I'm reading the words of a Tea Party teenager who is trying to fight with someone.
Mellow out and join the community.

You are way out of line.

Obviously you are the one posting inflamatory and incorrect remarks that you know nothing about....just like in the Vitamin D thread...where you were also wrong.

And for the record...not that it's any of your business...but since you so rudely made it your business...I voted Obama...both times.

Karma to you.

Dr. Johnston's study did not say "no more than 2 grams a day."

This is the paper I'm talking about http://ajcn.nutritio.../81/4/736.short

"...and that vitamin C supplements of ≤2000 mg/d are safe for most adults."


I'm quite done with this, lets move on - back to C60.

Someone said that many people are experiencing lucid dreams. I also noticed on after 3 months of 2-3 mg a day of C60 that I do remember my dreams more easily and seems to go into a deeper sleep. This would all be easier if we could just inject the C60 into us. It certainly would have more staying power.

Here's a note of caution on higher fullerenes. I've been taking C60 (and occasionally C60/C70) since April, generally once or twice every week or two. Recently I tried a very low continuous dose--1/4 mg twice a day--and noticed no ill results so after a few days I switched to C60/C70 (70%/28%, +2% higher), and after three days started getting weird pains--a continuous soreness in both calf muscles and a pulsing pain in the back of my neck that lasted a few hours. So I stopped and the pains seemed to have gone away. It could be a coincidence, but I'd never had pains like that before.

Someone said that many people are experiencing lucid dreams. I also noticed on after 3 months of 2-3 mg a day of C60 that I do remember my dreams more easily and seems to go into a deeper sleep. This would all be easier if we could just inject the C60 into us. It certainly would have more staying power.

I don't think that injecting would make much if any difference. The oral bioavailability of c60-oo is excellent. When compounds are injected, they usually clear faster, rather than slower. The GI tract serves as a buffer that feeds the compound in more slowly, so it takes longer to clear. In the case of c60, the kinetics is biphasic- there's a rapid clearance phase where it leaves the blood, and there is an extremely slow clearance phase during which it's exchanging out of the membranes. IV delivery would probably make the fast phase faster, and have no effect on the slow phase. If there are any receptor-mediated effects of c60-oo, they would be dependent on the fast phase kinetics, while the mitochondrial antioxidant effects depend on the slow phase.

I do remember my dreams more easily and seems to go into a deeper sleep.

Typically, dreams are remembered when sleep is shallow, not deep.

If anyone is interested, there is quite a detailed review of C60oo effects on longevity here: http://www.anti-agin...012/11/12/1424/ .

If anyone is interested, there is quite a detailed review of C60oo effects on longevity here: http://www.anti-agin...012/11/12/1424/ .

I had a look at that page and it said something of concerns that C60 released into the environment may cause damage, so I searched for that and seen this http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15238277 talking about brain damaged bass, sounds cool but does this apply to humans taking C60? If this stuff really does extend the life of some organisms, even just rats.. then wow we might be at the start of a whole new form of pollution, nano polluting the world

If anyone is interested, there is quite a detailed review of C60oo effects on longevity here: http://www.anti-agin...012/11/12/1424/ .

I had a look at that page and it said something of concerns that C60 released into the environment may cause damage, so I searched for that and seen this http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15238277 talking about brain damaged bass, sounds cool but does this apply to humans taking C60? If this stuff really does extend the life of some organisms, even just rats.. then wow we might be at the start of a whole new form of pollution, nano polluting the world

Yes, I had a second read of it and it seems to be a bit of a mixed bag of data. Statements like, “Fullerenes can potentiate hair growth” suggest a positive effect with faster thicker hair growth when applied topically to live mice and human skin sections maintained in culture but then “Despite its apparent benevolence when ingested by rats, C60 and its derivatives solutions when photo-activated can produce singlet oxygen radicals which are biologically damaging.” suggests anyone applying it for hair restoration should wear a hat or only apply it at night (my layman interpretation).
Some of the results suggest C60 can damage cells while others suggest it is a powerful antioxidant. Does that mean it’s like a “clumsy cleaner” in that it cleans up junk in the cell but bumps the DNA around in the process?

Some of the results suggest C60 can damage cells while others suggest it is a powerful antioxidant. Does that mean it’s like a “clumsy cleaner” in that it cleans up junk in the cell but bumps the DNA around in the process?

Not really. In the collection of papers was a very sketchy molecular dynamics simulation that was taken as evidence for c60 causing DNA damage. It was not a very good simulation (I'm very familiar with the technique), and just shouldn't be taken as evidence of anything.

Bottom line is, we know more from the sketchy anecdotal reports about the effects of c60/oo then we do from the "hard science."

A few, like Niner, and Turnbuckle, are putting out some fascinating speculation and kudos to them both but...

BTW I just reordered from Carbon60oliveoil.com, my fourth purchase from the vendor, so I'm a believer. If nothing else, the stuff makes my skin and hair feel/look great-- and placebo effect be damned, it's tough for this longtime supplement user to discount the general feeling of energy/wellbeing I have while taking c60; and it does seem to dissipate around the two week mark.

After this batch, I'll try to be judicious about taking a couple tablespoons of good olive oil per day and see if there's a subjective difference in hair/skin quality.

Also, I like your recipes Anthony. Fun stuff.

Cheers.

After this batch, I'll try to be judicious about taking a couple tablespoons of good olive oil per day and see if there's a subjective difference in hair/skin quality.

Cheers.

Perhaps you could turn it into a single blind study, so the Placebo effect is kept to a minimum. You could have a friend or family member decide which one you will be taking. Just a thought.

Interesting! Thanks.

I have now had a 2 week break from a month of daily dosing at 1.5mg. Im a heavy smoker and after walking up a few flights of stairs the other day I noticed that I was breathing heavier, the only way I would notice this is if it was out of the ordinary or the recent ordinary for me, it took me by surprise to be breathing heavy. I am also back to several cups of coffee per day instead of the 3-4 cups I was drinking while on the C60. I have also not had the extremely vivid dreams that I was having before. My sleeping is still improved from prior to taking it thou.

I have now had a 2 week break from a month of daily dosing at 1.5mg. Im a heavy smoker and after walking up a few flights of stairs the other day I noticed that I was breathing heavier, the only way I would notice this is if it was out of the ordinary or the recent ordinary for me, it took me by surprise to be breathing heavy. I am also back to several cups of coffee per day instead of the 3-4 cups I was drinking while on the C60. I have also not had the extremely vivid dreams that I was having before. My sleeping is still improved from prior to taking it thou.

If you want to live longer, forget about C60, just eliminate the smoking.

Hi folks. For those of you interested in the science of C60 as related to health and longevity - what is known and what is not known - I have just posted a long entry in my blog Buckyballs, health and longevity – state of knowledge It is at http://www.anti-agingfirewalls.com/ I have set out to make this a comprehensive treatment of the subject. If any of you know more, please chime in with comments. Vince Giuliano

This is a very good review of the science for a lay person like me. After reading through the various C60 threads for days and now reading Vince's review , I've decided to begin taking C60OO. I'm trying to decide which to order, Sarah's or Carbon. I'm not going to mess around and try manufacturing it myself.
I took a fairly comprehensive blood test earlier this week to get a basis for future comparison. I will get tested again after a month to 6 weeks of usage to see if there are any changes in liver enzymes, inflammation ( CRP ) or blood counts. I currently have low lymphs and WBC.

Hi folks. For those of you interested in the science of C60 as related to health and longevity - what is known and what is not known - I have just posted a long entry in my blog Buckyballs, health and longevity – state of knowledge It is at http://www.anti-agingfirewalls.com/ I have set out to make this a comprehensive treatment of the subject. If any of you know more, please chime in with comments. Vince Giuliano

This is a very good review of the science for a lay person like me. After reading through the various C60 threads for days and now reading Vince's review , I've decided to begin taking C60OO. I'm trying to decide which to order, Sarah's or Carbon. I'm not going to mess around and try manufacturing it myself.
I took a fairly comprehensive blood test earlier this week to get a basis for future comparison. I will get tested again after a month to 6 weeks of usage to see if there are any changes in liver enzymes, inflammation ( CRP ) or blood counts. I currently have low lymphs and WBC.

I've used both and it is my opinion that Carbon used better quality oil (by the taste test). Shipping for Carbon will be a couple days (coming from California) while Vaughter takes more than a week from Europe. I preferred the dosing syringe from Carbon over the eye dropper from Vaughter also. But personally, I prefer making my own now.

If you want to live longer, forget about C60, just eliminate the smoking.

Total agreement here, but it does raise a question: What would be the expected lifespan of each of these groups?

No smoking, no c60
No smoking, +c60
+smoking, no c60
+smoking, +c60

If you want to live longer, forget about C60, just eliminate the smoking.

Total agreement here, but it does raise a question: What would be the expected lifespan of each of these groups?

No smoking, no c60
No smoking, +c60
+smoking, no c60
+smoking, +c60

It's known that smoking produces both genetic damage and epigenetic changes that persist in former smokers, so some of the damage is perhaps permanent and not reversible by C60. As for the epigenetic changes, here is an interesting paper that shows certain genes involved in cancer and addiction to be turned on in smokers and even in former smokers who had quit for an average of 13 years--

...To investigate the persistent increase in MAO-B protein concentration, a study of the methylation of its gene promoter was undertaken in a small supplementary cohort of similar subjects. We found that the methylation frequency of the MAOB gene promoter was markedly lower (P<0.0001) for [smokers] and [former smokers] vs. [non smokers] due to cigarette smoke-induced increase of nucleic acid demethylase activity.
Conclusions/Significance

This is one of the first reports that smoking induces an epigenetic modification. A better understanding of the epigenome may help to further elucidate the physiopathology and the development of new therapeutic approaches to tobacco addiction. The results could have a larger impact than cardiovascular damage, considering that MAO-dependent 5-HT catabolism is also involved in addiction, predisposition to cancer, behaviour and mental health.

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0007959

I have now had a 2 week break from a month of daily dosing at 1.5mg. Im a heavy smoker and after walking up a few flights of stairs the other day I noticed that I was breathing heavier, the only way I would notice this is if it was out of the ordinary or the recent ordinary for me, it took me by surprise to be breathing heavy. I am also back to several cups of coffee per day instead of the 3-4 cups I was drinking while on the C60. I have also not had the extremely vivid dreams that I was having before. My sleeping is still improved from prior to taking it thou.

If you want to live longer, forget about C60, just eliminate the smoking.

+1 if you are at all interested in living a long healthy life, you need to stop smoking as soon as you can. I know it is hard. Get hypnotized, take Chantix, start working out vigorously for an hour 5 days a week, take Wellbutrin, smoke the electronic cigarette, chew nicotine gum, whatever it takes, do it all at the same time if you have to. Smoking addiction has a physiological and psychological cause. Get to the bottom of it and I'm sure you can free yourself from the chains of the tobacco industry in a year. Hell, smoke organic Anerican Spirits if you smoke anything at all.
Edited by Logan, 17 November 2012 - 11:19 PM.

Hell, smoke organic Anerican Spirits if you smoke anything at all.

I agree with everything else you said; that was all good. This I'm not so sure about. Is there any evidence at all that AS is any better than any other cigarette? I know there's a lot of internet conspiracy theory wisdom that claims tobacco is fine, it's just whatever chemicals that are added to it that cause all the problems. I think that's probably as valid as all the other internet conspiracy theorizing... Even if it turned out that they were a little bit better than Marlboros, it's unlikely to make up for all the people who then won't quit because they think they've found a "safe" cigarette.

I hear ya. I just think that you might as well smoke the possible lesser of the evils

One significant cause of lung cancer in smokers is the buildup of radioactive particles in their lungs. These particles accumulate on the tiny hairs which cover tobacco leaves.

The amount of this radioactivity doesn't change with organic or conventional growing methods, to my knowledge.

That just points out what a crappy nicotine delivery system cigarettes are. Alternatives abound- I just heard about a nicotine solution that you spray into your mouth like a breath spray. I think it was from a J&J company.

Cheers, I do smoke an electronic cigarette as well. I cut down to 20 real cigs per day from a crazy amount but I just cant kick the real cigs right now, I think it is the MAOI effects, I need this or whatever else cigarettes give me. The other night I was working late falling asleep puffing on my ecig, I had a real cig and bang I was woken up and concentrating again.
I have been on wellbutrin in the past but still smoked. I had a period last year where I smoked e-cigs only for 3 months and was fine, I think that if my life is going ok then I wont need the regular cigs.

One significant cause of lung cancer in smokers is the buildup of radioactive particles in their lungs. These particles accumulate on the tiny hairs which cover tobacco leaves.

The amount of this radioactivity doesn't change with organic or conventional growing methods, to my knowledge.

And yeah it is the high nitrate fertilizers that cause most of this.
I think that health funds should be put into trying to reduce the harm of cigarettes and ecigs should be available everywhere that regular cigs are sold