13 replies to this topic

[danniego]

Looking at the early initial data (14 users) from the Poll:
http://www.longecity...ing-c60oo-data/

It looks that the intake quantity/regime differs a lot and is scattered around among the users.

Anyone can explain this overall?
Any users who want to explain his rationale/premise/assumption/reasoning about his intake quantity and regime?

[tintinet]

I think the optimal dose for humans is unknown at this time, so one dose (within reason) is as good as any. Taking C60 OO at all, based upon one tiny n rodent study, is irrational anyway, no?

[JohnD60]

My rationale is that a couple of the first users were taking something like 400mg a month and not experiencing immediate health problems, thus I thought that 135mg/month would be a safe dose. Hopefully achieving my primary goal of not posioning myself.

Edited by JohnD60, 20 September 2012 - 12:34 AM.

[niner]

I've been keeping track of what people have reported in the various C60 threads, and there is no correlation between dose and positive effects. Some people report positive effects at 1.5mg/day, others have reported no effect at 80mg/day. There are two groups of people who report positive effects: The first group is people with health problems involving hypoxic states or mitochondrial dysfunction, and the second group is people who are familiar with their athletic limits. Reasonably healthy couch potatoes don't seem to feel much. (They still benefit, just don't "feel" it.)

My analysis of this is that there is a minimum dose required to produce the good effects, but once you have met that threshold, adding more C60 doesn't make any difference. Although I don't know that all the observed effects are due to free radical neutralization, (in fact I doubt that's the only mechanism at work), free radicals (ROS) do provide a convenient hypothesis: Once you have enough C60 to eliminate most ROS, adding more C60 doesn't change the situation- you are still eliminating most of the ROS. However, I think that people who are taking large doses are loading up their membranes with the C60-oo adduct, and if they stopped using C60, they would still be protected for a long time, as the C60 was gradually eliminated from the membranes. I think that Baati's rats give some indication of how long the residence time is- apparently a couple years, for rats at the dose and duration they used. Recall that the rats had an almost perfectly square mortality curve- They all lived for years, then they all dropped dead within a period of a couple weeks. Could this have been the point at which they all ran out of C60? Or did they hit some other fundamental limit?

[Turnbuckle]

They all lived for years, then they all dropped dead within a period of a couple weeks. Could this have been the point at which they all ran out of C60? Or did they hit some other fundamental limit?

Or the researchers ran out of patience. Didn't someone mention that the last two C60 rats were euthanized?

[niner]

They all lived for years, then they all dropped dead within a period of a couple weeks. Could this have been the point at which they all ran out of C60? Or did they hit some other fundamental limit?

Or the researchers ran out of patience. Didn't someone mention that the last two C60 rats were euthanized?

I don't remember, but AgeVivo is in contact with Moussa's group, and could probably get the story. If the last two were in fact euthanized, they were probably on the brink of death anyway, and the curve for the other four was still more square than any rat curve I've ever seen. Something was going on there- it would be really interesting to know what it was.

[Turnbuckle]

They all lived for years, then they all dropped dead within a period of a couple weeks. Could this have been the point at which they all ran out of C60? Or did they hit some other fundamental limit?

Or the researchers ran out of patience. Didn't someone mention that the last two C60 rats were euthanized?

I don't remember, but AgeVivo is in contact with Moussa's group, and could probably get the story. If the last two were in fact euthanized, they were probably on the brink of death anyway, and the curve for the other four was still more square than any rat curve I've ever seen. Something was going on there- it would be really interesting to know what it was.

Logic, on the 3 mice at home thread--

I am still of the opinion that one should try to improve on the results obtained by Baati et-al who slowed and discontinued dosage to avoid having the experiment take too long IMHO.

It seems they may even have killed the last two rats to end the experiment.

And some lab rats naturally show a square curve--

Attached Files

•  Survival curves for females of 12 inbred strains of laboratory mice.png   24.94KB   28 downloads

[hav]

My own rational is to try and take a dosage similar to that used in the study. The effect I'm after is the effect observed in the study which interests me: longevity. We don't really have a solid basis to correlate other effects with longevity, like increasing athletic performance, or the other effects people observe at dosages lower than those used in the study. Add to that the fact that we don't even know enough to be certain how to scale the dosage from rats to humans. So personally its no surprise to me that we're all over the map on dosage. More study needs to be done. A repeat study with a lower dosage control group might help clarify things. Perhaps with shorter lived mammals so we get quicker results. Otherwise we might just need to wait 20 to 90 years and see how we do.

Howard

[niner]

Where did Logic come up with that?

The squarest lab rat curve is not as square as Baati, and the corrected graph is even more square, IIRC.

[Logic]

Where did Logic come up with that?

http://www.longecity...post__p__523983

[pleb]

i have read that human cells split aprox 50 times and have aprox 80 Hayflic passages,
i have no idea what the equivalent is for rats but could the C60 have removed enough ROS and the other things it may do and kept their bodies healthy long enough for them to pass their final Hayflick limit, ???,

Edited by pleb, 21 December 2012 - 08:53 PM.

[Kevnzworld]

i have read that human cells split aprox 50 times and have aprox 80 Hayflic passages,
i have no idea what the equivalent is for rats but could the C60 have removed enough ROS and the other things it may do and kept their bodies healthy long enough for them to pass their final Hayflick limit, ???,

I don't think that the science as we know it supports the idea that antioxidants allow any animal to " pass their final hayflick limit ". Antiioxidants may support telomere health. If C60 extends the Hayflck limit, it's not just its ability to remove ROS.

[pleb]

sorry kevin, i think i worded that wrongly, i should have said allowed them because they stayed healthy and disease free to reach their last natural hayflick passage and then die,

Edited by pleb, 22 December 2012 - 07:52 AM.

[niner]

i have read that human cells split aprox 50 times and have aprox 80 Hayflic passages,
i have no idea what the equivalent is for rats but could the C60 have removed enough ROS and the other things it may do and kept their bodies healthy long enough for them to pass their final Hayflick limit, ???,

I don't think that the science as we know it supports the idea that antioxidants allow any animal to " pass their final hayflick limit ". Antiioxidants may support telomere health. If C60 extends the Hayflck limit, it's not just its ability to remove ROS.

Actually, a lot of telomere shortening is due to oxidative damage, and antioxidants have been shown to ameliorate this, so c60 might help to make sure that the animal gets as many passages as possible.