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

Photo
- - - - -

High Ferritin Levels for Optimal Hair Growth - Dilemma

ferritin iron saturation hair

  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#61 mikey

  • Guest
  • 987 posts
  • 171
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2013 - 05:09 AM

By the way, Mikey - so... you say that C60 has taken 10 years off you, do you think it could take 10 years off a 27 year old? (please say yes lol) :)


I believe that if a 27-year old started taking it they would greatly reduce their aging as they go forward in life.

And they might see some reversal.

Remember, the study gave middle-aged rats C60, and it still almost doubled their lifespans.

#62 mikey

  • Guest
  • 987 posts
  • 171
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2013 - 06:09 AM

It protects from many degenerative conditions of aging, functioning as an antioxidant, with a reported 172 times more antioxidant potential than vitamin C, while also getting into smaller compartments in metabolism than other antioxidants.

The only thing it doesn't seem to do is protect the cardiovascular system, but maybe that will be discovered, too.


Mikey, where did you find the 172 X vitamin C comparison? I'd like to see what they say and what they're basing that on. I can't imagine why c60 wouldn't protect the cardiovascular system, to the extent that oxidative processes are important there. There are a lot of cardiac conditions where I think it would be effective. If I had a heart attack or a stroke, I'd sure want to have some c60 on board. I think it would be helpful in congestive heart failure, perhaps very much so. Probably good for angina, too. Basically, it's useful in any condition involving hypoxia, among other things.


I'm rusty on finding the study that said 172 x more AO potential. I have 82 files on C60 and right now I'm working about 70 hours a week, so I'm sorry but I don't have time to search for it.

I don't know that it has no protective effect on the CV system. It seems like it should.
But if you read the introduction to the study you'll see that they cite anti-cancer, anti-Alzhemer's, hair-growing - like a bunch of anti's for degenerative conditions of aging, but nothing about CVD.

As well, none of us noticed changes in our blood lipids after starting C60, although I don't know that anyone had oxidized LDL measured. Being such a strong antioxidant, you would think that C60 would reduce the oxidation of LDL, which would be cardioprotective.
  • dislike x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for AGELESS LOOKS to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#63 JBForrester

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 350 posts
  • 147
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 05 November 2013 - 08:08 AM

Wait, so is 2mg of C60 the standard beginner's dosage? Like if I wanted to start and work my way up? Niner, are you taking it too?

Just submitted my order for C60... Nervous/excited for it's arrival...

#64 mikey

  • Guest
  • 987 posts
  • 171
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2013 - 08:48 AM

It protects from many degenerative conditions of aging, functioning as an antioxidant, with a reported 172 times more antioxidant potential than vitamin C, while also getting into smaller compartments in metabolism than other antioxidants.

The only thing it doesn't seem to do is protect the cardiovascular system, but maybe that will be discovered, too.


Mikey, where did you find the 172 X vitamin C comparison? I'd like to see what they say and what they're basing that on. I can't imagine why c60 wouldn't protect the cardiovascular system, to the extent that oxidative processes are important there. There are a lot of cardiac conditions where I think it would be effective. If I had a heart attack or a stroke, I'd sure want to have some c60 on board. I think it would be helpful in congestive heart failure, perhaps very much so. Probably good for angina, too. Basically, it's useful in any condition involving hypoxia, among other things.


I'm rusty on finding the study that said 172 x more AO potential. I have 82 files on C60 and right now I'm working about 70 hours a week, so I'm sorry but I don't have time to search for it.

I don't know that it has no protective effect on the CV system. It seems like it should.
But if you read the introduction to the study you'll see that they cite anti-cancer, anti-Alzhemer's, hair-growing - like a bunch of anti's for degenerative conditions of aging, but nothing about CVD.

As well, none of us noticed changes in our blood lipids after starting C60, although I don't know that anyone had oxidized LDL measured. Being such a strong antioxidant, you would think that C60 would reduce the oxidation of LDL, which would be cardioprotective.


Hey Niner. I bet that if you asked Turnbuckle about data that showed C60 to have 172 x more antioxidant potential than vitamin C he would come up with something. I'd also read an other similarly high number somewhere else.

#65 mikey

  • Guest
  • 987 posts
  • 171
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2013 - 08:54 AM

By the way, Mikey - so... you say that C60 has taken 10 years off you, do you think it could take 10 years off a 27 year old? (please say yes lol) :)


That would be surprising, since it would involve running development in reverse, correcting photodamage, and all manner of things. On the other hand, if you have certain kinds of damage, maybe it will help you. I just wouldn't hold up a ten year age reversal as a marker of successful use or as something to expect. It's really hard to evaluate things like wrinkles and skin condition from a systemic drug, unless you have some sophisticated equipment to measure skin properties. If you have a topical compound, you can do a split face experiment, where you apply the drug to only one side of the face and watch for an asymmetric improvement. Just basing it on how you look in the mirror is susceptible to a lot of variation.


Quite frankly, there's no question that photo-damage and other forms of oxidative damage to my skin have been reversed since I've been taking C60.

It's not ONLY my opinion.

My closest living friend says that without a doubt my wrinkles have melted considerably during this time.

And he's a 33-year old artist, so he's good at judging things like this.

The logic is that the extremely protective antioxidant effects of C60 have allowed the elastin and collagen in my face to regenerate more adeptly, without being interrupted by oxidation.

#66 mikey

  • Guest
  • 987 posts
  • 171
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 November 2013 - 04:11 PM

After going vegan and consuming less iron, I didn't notice any slowing of hair growth while my levels were dropping over time. My hair grows about 10" a year still (I suppose genetics play a role here). I came across this a while back, perhaps it will be of interest to you.

Probiotic Bacteria Induce a ‘Glow of Health’

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0053867
Radiant skin and hair are universally recognized as indications of good health. However, this ‘glow of health’ display remains poorly understood. We found that feeding of probiotic bacteria to aged mice induced integumentary changes mimicking peak health and reproductive fitness characteristic of much younger animals. Eating probiotic yogurt triggered epithelial follicular anagen-phase shift with sebocytogenesis resulting in thick lustrous fur due to a bacteria-triggered interleukin-10-dependent mechanism. Aged male animals eating probiotics exhibited increased subcuticular folliculogenesis, when compared with matched controls, yielding luxuriant fur only in probiotic-fed subjects. Female animals displayed probiotic-induced hyperacidity coinciding with shinier hair, a feature that also aligns with fertility in human females. Together these data provide insights into mammalian evolution and novel strategies for integumentary health.


Ah. Probiotics are a confounder when considering the improvement in my skin since I've been taking C60.

So, here's a tip, in case you don't know it - there's only one probiotic that I'll bother with, since I'd rather not drink kefir and expose myself to dairy proteins.

VSL#3 is easily the best buy, best product available.

I can buy Jarrow probiotics for wholesale, delivered to my house.

But even at half price, if I buy Jarrow's best probiotic and try to equal what I get from VSL#3 at full retail, the Jarrow PB costs me at least 30% more - and VSL#3 has 7 published studies showing its effects on pathologies.

It gives you 450 billion organisms (or 900...) per daily packet.

Four days after I started taking it I could sing high notes again. I used to sing in bands and I would croak if I tried to hit the high notes I used to hit for the last 20-30 years.

It seems obvious that some bugs had infected my larynx and the PB's in VSL#3 kicked them out and boom - I could sing again.

It's amazing stuff!

#67 JBForrester

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 350 posts
  • 147
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 10 November 2013 - 04:50 AM

Okay, just got the shipment in for the C60. I have a few questions however and am a bit perplexed/scared.

1. Everyone says to take X mg of C60, but how would I measure that? The measurement device given to me was a cc/mL syringe. I've heard taking a couple drops is pretty much equivalent to 1.5/2 mg, but I accidentally took about 7 drops as my hand slipped!!! Am I in trouble???

2. Is it better to take a little every day or more every 9 days like they did on the rats?

3. Has anybody taken C60 long term on this forum (+7 years)?

#68 mikey

  • Guest
  • 987 posts
  • 171
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 10 November 2013 - 06:50 AM

It's 0.8 mg per ml.
I take about 9 ml, which yields about 7.2 mg (9 x 0.8 = 7.2)

If you take 3 ml you get 2.4 mg, which works well enough that Turnbuckle could run 4 miles again, after just taking it for something like four days, after statin use damaged his mitochondria and endurance so that if he ran 100 yards it felt like he ran a marathon.

So 2 mg is an effective dose.

It's completely non-toxic - even long-term, according to the lead author of the study that everyone read and then decided to take it.

So I take 7 mg every morning and have since early August, 2012.

There are those who think it should be taken on some intermittent basis. I differ with them.

I don't think anyone on this site knew about it 7 years ago. The first post for C60 experiments @ home was April, 2012. It was a short time after then that people were making it at home and taking it, so that's how long term this whole thing is.

You might want to read http://extremelongev...s-rat-lifespan/

And the study itself - http://extremelongev...0-Fullerene.pdf

Edited by mikey, 10 November 2013 - 06:52 AM.


#69 JBForrester

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 350 posts
  • 147
  • Location:Auckland, NZ

Posted 10 November 2013 - 07:51 AM

Thanks Mikey!

I have mild dyscalculia so pardon for my lack of math skills.

Question - how do you know the success of C60 isn't just a hormetic effect like methylane blue? And so if you take too much it will cause more damage than good? Like with Vitamin C, which is known to become pro-oxidant on very high doses.

#70 mikey

  • Guest
  • 987 posts
  • 171
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 12 November 2013 - 07:21 AM

Hello JB,

I strongly suggest that you sign in and watch the video interview of Dr. Moussa at: http://c60.net/full-...r-fathi-moussa/

I hear all kinds of complex "maybes" as brilliant people try to find ways that C60oo causes mitochondrial toxicity.

Dr. Moussa is a world authority on C60, having studied it for 18 years and he said in the video interview that it is "absolutely not toxic" and then later in the video he says even long term.

And don't you believe that nonscience about vitamin C being a pro-oxidant at very high doses. That's garbage science.

An excellent analysis of vitamin C's lack of toxicity comes from long-time USDA researcher, Dr. Carol S. Johnston. She was asked to find the tolerable upper limit for vitamin C by the Institute of Medicine-sponsored Food and Nutrition Board.

"Dr. Carol Johnston of Arizona State University published an article in Nutrition Reviews in March [1999] in which she reviewed the scientific and medical evidence that might allow the establishment of an "upper intake level" for vitamin C. She examined the evidence on "rebound scurvy", kidney stones, hemolytic anemia in patients with glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency, enhanced iron absorption, pro-oxidant effects, and the destruction of vitamin B12. She noted that the experimental, clinical, and epidemiological evidence does not support a detrimental role for vitamin C in any of these conditions, although we still do not know the effect of large amounts of vitamin C in people with hemochromatosis, or iron-overload disease. Her analysis is in agreement with the many other reviews of the safety of supplemental vitamin C. Dr. Johnston concludes that "the available data indicate that very high intakes of vitamin C (2-4 g/day) are well tolerated biologically in healthy mammalian systems. Currently, strong scientific evidence to define and defend a UL [Tolerable Upper Intake Level] for vitamin C is not available." In other words, we cannot establish a threshold of toxicity for vitamin C."

You might want to read the rest of the page that this text was copied from, if you have concerns about vitamin C exhibiting toxicity.

The only trouble vitamin C causes is diarrhea if one takes too much orally. It does not cause cytotoxicity.

If one takes oral liposomal vitamin C, we can take very high doses without the bowel tolerance effect. The same with IV vitamin C.

Edited by mikey, 12 November 2013 - 07:45 AM.

  • dislike x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: ferritin, iron saturation, hair

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users