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

Photo
- - - - -

Glutathione IV!

glutathione

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#1 Adamzski

  • Guest
  • 667 posts
  • 58
  • Location:South Korea

Posted 15 March 2014 - 08:57 AM


My gf is a nurse and she has started giving herself IV's of Glutathione+Vitamin C , it seems to be getting popular in Korea now as it lightens and improves skin. She said she will bring the gear home and mainline me with some. What are peoples thoughts on this?

I found some info online
http://www.renewskin...lutathione.html

It seems to help repairing lung damage as well and I am a smoker.

My gf works in reconstructive plastic surgery for burn victims etc, what interesting stuff could I get her to swipe from work?
  • unsure x 1

#2 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,669 posts
  • 1,510
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 15 March 2014 - 09:04 AM

I find that reduced glutathione works very well with C when taken orally. I take 1 g plus 3 g of C (and generally 2 g of niacin). The only drawback is it erased my tan.

How much glutathione is in the IV treatment? I see one injectable source with 1500 mg glutathione and 500 mg C.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 15 March 2014 - 09:14 AM.

  • like 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).

#3 Adamzski

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 667 posts
  • 58
  • Location:South Korea

Posted 15 March 2014 - 10:01 AM

erasing your tan, that is pretty powerful, it must work well orally.

I am a little darker as I have been in Thailand this last few weeks but I can go very white and sickly looking through the winters.

One thing that I noticed in that link that I posted above, they say it should only be used by people above 27yo? Why would this be? maybe young people already have enough of it. My gf is 22 and the hospital is giving it to her so I spose it can not cause harm in younger people.

If this declines with age it seems like a great thing to supplement. I have been looking online some and it seems that many athletes and in particular MMA type fighters use it.
It is also available as a suppository , may be a bit easier to take via that route ongoing.

It is 600mg

Posted Image

Edited by Adamzski, 15 March 2014 - 10:04 AM.


⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#4 GetMaxed

  • Guest
  • 31 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Australia

Posted 18 March 2014 - 12:43 PM

The skin whitening aspect of glutathione is bit of an anomaly to me. Supplementing with glutathione would definitely help with looking younger for longer, but not because of the whitening affect. It is the primary anti-oxidant, detoxifer and redox buffer in the cell, so it has critical functions in keeping healthier overall, including the skin, which leads to looking younger for longer. I've put together some very detailed research on glutathione at http://danielcampagn...-gsh-cysteine-1 which might answer some questions you have about it.

#5 Adamzski

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 667 posts
  • 58
  • Location:South Korea

Posted 20 March 2014 - 05:49 AM

Thanks that is great information that you have on your site there. I will read it fully but what kind of dosage would you recommend for Glutathione, daily oral sups or a bi-weekly or monthly 600mg IV?

Again the info you have is really great, I will research more as it seems I can get my hands on this stuff at very low cost ongoing and I also have my nurse gf to administer it :)

and edit: what is your opinion on C60?

Edited by Adamzski, 20 March 2014 - 05:50 AM.


#6 GetMaxed

  • Guest
  • 31 posts
  • 9
  • Location:Australia

Posted 20 March 2014 - 04:06 PM

I couldn't really recommend a particular dosage without knowing specifics. Most glutathione supps dosage is in the low hundreds of milligrams per day. My personal preference would be a smaller daily dose over the occasional mega dose.
If you can get it particularly cheap then that could be a good option, as long as you don't mind that route of administration. I'd be interested to know, can you private message me? I'm not a big fan of needles, I'd rather pop a couple capsules every day!

My friends at anti-agingfirewalls.com have posted up a recent review of C60 at http://www.anti-agin...s-in-olive-oil/

#7 sthira

  • Guest
  • 1,984 posts
  • 399

Posted 27 March 2014 - 07:06 PM

I find that reduced glutathione works very well with C when taken orally. I take 1 g plus 3 g of C (and generally 2 g of niacin).


I've been taking 500 mg of reduced glutathione with 1g of vitamin c. I've been taking them before bed because I don't want to take these too close to post-workouts. Any ideas about how much time should elapse before taking them after hard, sweaty exercise?

#8 zorba990

  • Guest
  • 1,393 posts
  • 211

Posted 27 March 2014 - 07:20 PM

I find that reduced glutathione works very well with C when taken orally. I take 1 g plus 3 g of C (and generally 2 g of niacin).


I've been taking 500 mg of reduced glutathione with 1g of vitamin c. I've been taking them before bed because I don't want to take these too close to post-workouts. Any ideas about how much time should elapse before taking them after hard, sweaty exercise?


Looks like an hour should do it:

http://www.sportssci...terburn-effect/


Posted Image


#9 Soma

  • Guest
  • 341 posts
  • 105

Posted 03 April 2014 - 10:37 PM

In terms of oral glutathione, are there any merits to acetyl-glutathione? I'm wondering whether the purported increase in bioavailability is commensurate with the increase in cost, as it is rather pricey.

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#10 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,669 posts
  • 1,510
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 04 April 2014 - 02:19 AM

I find that reduced glutathione works very well with C when taken orally. I take 1 g plus 3 g of C (and generally 2 g of niacin).


To update my dose--I've now added 500 mg of ascorbyl palmitate (an oil soluble form of vitamin C) and that seems even better.

I'm now also using a solution of ascorbyl palmitate in olive oil topically, and that is most effective in eliminating wrinkles.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 04 April 2014 - 02:21 AM.

  • like x 1

#11 Olafur Pall Olafsson

  • Guest
  • 24 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Iceland

Posted 04 April 2014 - 05:56 AM

Glutathione is mostly worthless when taken orally because it is hydrolyzed in the digestive tract and therefore never reaches the circulation intact.

With respect to intravenous glutathione, there exists some evidence of benefit in humans for some disease states but for healthy people there is hardly any evidence of benefit. Even in diseased states the benefits of intravenous glutathione are limited by the short plasma half-life of glutathione. Note that young people that take good care of their healh normally produce plenty of glutathione endogenously already and any extra in the form of intravenous injection would therefore not be of any significant benefit.

It is generally better to increase the endogenous production of glutathione rather than trying to supplement it. There are some interventions that may do this and some of them will be covered on http://Live120Plus.com when we get it up and running.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#12 Soma

  • Guest
  • 341 posts
  • 105

Posted 04 April 2014 - 04:49 PM

Glutathione is mostly worthless when taken orally because it is hydrolyzed in the digestive tract and therefore never reaches the circulation intact.


This has always been my understanding as well. It does make you wonder about some of the perceived benefits people described from taking oral glutathione. Maybe only the very tiny amount that actually becomes bioavailable can generate a noticeable change. And then again, maybe it is nothing more than the power of placebo and overactive imagination which seems to be ubiquitous amongst supplement-takers.

#13 Olafur Pall Olafsson

  • Guest
  • 24 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Iceland

Posted 04 April 2014 - 07:06 PM

This has always been my understanding as well. It does make you wonder about some of the perceived benefits people described from taking oral glutathione. Maybe only the very tiny amount that actually becomes bioavailable can generate a noticeable change. And then again, maybe it is nothing more than the power of placebo and overactive imagination which seems to be ubiquitous amongst supplement-takers.

I suspect it is mostly placebo. However I should mention that the fact that glutathione is broken down in the digestive tract, and isn't orally bioavailable, that doesn't necessarily mean it is completely worthless. When it is broken down in the digestive tract it is hydrolyzed to its corresponding amino acids at least partly. The amino acids can then be taken up in the digestive tract and once absorbed they can be used by cells to produce glutathione. Any benefit of this would mainly be dependant on the extent to which cysteine is formed and absorbed as result of the breakdown of glutathione. Any cysteine absorbed may then help increase glutathione levels because it is usually the rate limiting amino acid in it's formation. Note that glutathione is about 40% cysteine by weight so theoritically 1 gram of orally ingested glutathione could provide 400 mg of cysteine that can be absorbed and utilized. But of course for this purpose it is much cheaper to simply take cysteine directly or N-acetyl-cysteine as a source of cysteine.

#14 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,669 posts
  • 1,510
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 April 2014 - 12:43 PM

Glutathione is mostly worthless when taken orally because it is hydrolyzed in the digestive tract and therefore never reaches the circulation intact.


This has always been my understanding as well...



You might want to revise your understanding, especially with regard to reduced glutathione.

See here--Reversal of age-associated decline in immune responsiveness by dietary glutathione supplementation in mice.

And here--Enhanced Glutathione Levels in Blood and Buccal Cells by Oral Glutathione Supplementation

Previous studies in laboratory animals indicate that orally administered GSH is bioavailable and effective at enhancing tissue GSH levels. The current objective was to determine the efficacy of GSH supplementation at enhancing body stores of GSH in healthy adults. We conducted a 6-mo randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial to determine the impact of GSH administration at 250 mg/day and 1000 mg/day on GSH levels in different blood components and exfoliated buccal mucosal cells. Subjects were 54 healthy adults (41 females/13 males), 28–72 yr of age (mean=46.6 yr). Compliance was >90% by pill count. After 6 mo in the high dose group, GSH levels were increased 30–35% in RBC, plasma, and lymphocytes and 260% in buccal cells (P<0.05). In most cases, the increases were dose and time dependent and levels returned to baseline after a 1-month washout. No significant changes were observed in levels of protein bound GSH. A battery of immune function markers was also examined after 3 mo of GSH supplementation and Natural Killer (NK) cytotoxicity was enhanced > 2-fold in the high dose group (P<0.05). Altogether, these findings are consistent with previous pre-clinical studies and indicate that long-term oral administration GSH is an effective means of enhancing body stores of GSH.


  • like x 1

#15 ta5

  • Guest
  • 851 posts
  • 258
  • Location: 

Posted 05 April 2014 - 07:07 PM

There's conflicting information on oral glutathione.

J Altern Complement Med. 2011 Sep;17(9):827-33.
Effects of oral glutathione supplementation on systemic oxidative stress biomarkers in human volunteers.
PMID: 21875351
"No significant changes were observed in biomarkers of oxidative stress, including glutathione status, in this clinical trial of oral glutathione supplementation in healthy adults."

S-Acetyl-Glutathione looks interesting:

Med Microbiol Immunol. 2005 Jan;194(1-2):55-9. Epub 2003 Nov 18.
Effects of S-acetylglutathione in cell and animal model of herpes simplex virus type 1 infection.
PMID: 14624358
"One could argue that high S-GSH doses could lead to toxic side effects. However, this is in contrast to previous observations of our group showing oral S-GSH doses of up to 3.5 mg/g body weight to be well tolerated in mice..."

J Inherit Metab Dis. 2004;27(6):783-6.
S-Acetylglutathione normalizes intracellular glutathione content in cultured fibroblasts from patients with glutathione synthetase deficiency
PMID: 15617191
"Previous observations showed that oral S-acetyl-GSH up to 3.5 mg/g body weight was well tolerated in mice (Vogel et al 2003)."

Antiviral Res. 2008 Feb;77(2):120-7.
Inhibition of murine AIDS by pro-glutathione (GSH) molecules
PMID: 18164447
"For SAG, it had been observed that oral doses of up to 3.5 g/kg body weight were well tolerated in mice (unpublished results)."

According to one distributor of an S-Acetyl-Glutathione supplement, "The stability of S-acetylglutathione through the intestinal wall and the plasma is well documented in the literature." Though, I don't know which of their references supports that, if any.

Patent: Oral Delivery of Therapeutic Doses of Glutathione
US 20110160305 A1
"A problem with oral delivery of glutathione is that glutathione is difficult to ingest orally. It is digested by the stomach since it is protein based. Also, glutathione is unstable in alkaline or oxidative environments and degraded in the stomach by the desulfurases and peptidases. Oral administration of glutathione is not considered effective because of hydrolysis of glutathione by intestinal and hepatic gamma-glutamyltransferase. The amount of oral doses of glutathione that would be needed to be effective due to its poor gastrointestinal absorption could lead to harmful side effects.
[...]
Cysteine and N-acetyl cysteine also compete with existing glutathione for resources in certain reducing pathways.
[...]
These obstacles may be overcome by a glutathione derivative S-acetylglutathione (S-GSH), which is more stable in plasma and taken up directly by cells with subsequent conversion to GSH.... S-GSH is much more stable, able to bypass digestion in the stomach and does not negatively affect the production of GSH in the cells. It is thus able to be transported directly into the cells for conversion to GSH."

Even NAC may not always increase glutathione:
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1995 Jan;11(1):141-3.
Supplementation of N-Acetylcysteine Fails to Increase Glutathione in Lymphocytes and Plasma of Patients with AIDS
PMID: 7734187
"In view of these proposed pathogenic mechanisms, supplementation of cysteine or a prodrug of cysteine, such as N-acetylcysteine (NAC), should correct the GSH status. Yet, although a large, single dose of orally administered NAC increases the intracellular concentration of cysteine, it does not increase the concentration of GSH in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of patients with AIDS."

#16 Soma

  • Guest
  • 341 posts
  • 105

Posted 05 April 2014 - 07:49 PM

"The systemic availability of oral glutathione.
Abstract
When the plasma glutathione concentration is low, such as in patients with HIV infection, alcoholics, and patients with cirrhosis, increasing the availability of circulating glutathione by oral administration might be of therapeutic benefit. To assess the feasibility of supplementing oral glutathione we have determined the systemic availability of glutathione in 7 healthy volunteers. The basal concentrations of glutathione, cysteine, and glutamate in plasma were 6.2, 8.3, and 54 mumol.l-1 respectively. During the 270 min after the administration of glutathione in a dose of 0.15 mmol.kg-1 the concentrations of glutathione, cysteine, and glutamate in plasma did not increase significantly, suggesting that the systemic availability of glutathione is negligible in man. Because of hydrolysis of glutathione by intestinal and hepatic gamma-glutamyltransferase, dietary glutathione is not a major determinant of circulating glutathione, and it is not possible to increase circulating glutathione to a clinically beneficial extent by the oral administration of a single dose of 3 g of glutathione."
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/1362956


It seems like one would have to ingest many grams of oral glutathione to have any sort of effect, due to intestinal hydrolysis. Being an expensive substance, ingesting grams doesn't seem like a cost-effective, and therefore practical, method of raising glutathione levels. I have to agree with Olafur that these positive experiences seem to me to be the product of placebo.

Edited by Soma, 05 April 2014 - 07:52 PM.


#17 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,669 posts
  • 1,510
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 05 April 2014 - 09:01 PM

There's conflicting information on oral glutathione.




No kidding! These groups of researchers have come to nearly opposite conclusions. And with the study you referenced, the p=.7 suggests that there was no difference at all between the two groups in gluthathione concentration. Which makes no sense, especially with the obvious benefits many are seeing from it.

This is the full text of the Penn State study I referenced above--
http://mdriveformen....information.pdf

Note that the source of GSH for the two trials is different. The source for the Penn State study was a brand known as Setria, which is also the brand in the Healthy Origins capsules I take. Perhaps that has something to do with it.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 05 April 2014 - 09:11 PM.


#18 APBT

  • Member
  • 817 posts
  • 341

Posted 06 April 2014 - 01:35 AM

I'm now also using a solution of ascorbyl palmitate in olive oil topically, and that is most effective in eliminating wrinkles.

Turnbuckle
What is the ratio of ascorbyl palmitate to olive oil? Do you mix up a batch, if so how much? Are you using any other skin care products or tretinoin along with your concoction? Is the reduction of wrinkling subtle or pronounced? Thanks.

#19 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,669 posts
  • 1,510
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 06 April 2014 - 11:55 AM

I'm now also using a solution of ascorbyl palmitate in olive oil topically, and that is most effective in eliminating wrinkles.

Turnbuckle
What is the ratio of ascorbyl palmitate to olive oil? Do you mix up a batch, if so how much? Are you using any other skin care products or tretinoin along with your concoction? Is the reduction of wrinkling subtle or pronounced? Thanks.


I mixed up 5 oz of EVOO with 1 gram of ascorbyl palmitate. This concentration was totally arbitrary, but it seemed to work well. Later I added 1 gram of squalene and 1 cap of LEF ceremides (about 200 mg ceremidies). Neither had any noticeable effect, possibly because olive oil contains squalene and I was already taking ceremides twice a week. Finally I added 100 mg of BHT because I've been outside a lot and I wanted to protect the ascorbyl palmitate from premature oxidation. This might have had a small effect, but it's hard to say.

Olive oil by itself produces good effects, but the ascorbyl palmitate about doubles it. A few days ago I tried the mix as a replacement for underarm anti-deodorant, and so far so good. (Thirty years ago I'd found that Vitamin A worked as an anti-deodorant, though I was not able to use it because of the fish smell. Thus I suspect that any odorless oil-soluble anti-oxidant might work.)

And to answer your question about other skin care products--I'm not using any except for the oral ceremides noted above.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 06 April 2014 - 12:02 PM.


#20 APBT

  • Member
  • 817 posts
  • 341

Posted 06 April 2014 - 07:28 PM

I mixed up 5 oz of EVOO with 1 gram of ascorbyl palmitate. This concentration was totally arbitrary, but it seemed to work well. Later I added 1 gram of squalene and 1 cap of LEF ceremides (about 200 mg ceremidies). Neither had any noticeable effect, possibly because olive oil contains squalene and I was already taking ceremides twice a week. Finally I added 100 mg of BHT because I've been outside a lot and I wanted to protect the ascorbyl palmitate from premature oxidation. This might have had a small effect, but it's hard to say.

Olive oil by itself produces good effects, but the ascorbyl palmitate about doubles it. A few days ago I tried the mix as a replacement for underarm anti-deodorant, and so far so good. (Thirty years ago I'd found that Vitamin A worked as an anti-deodorant, though I was not able to use it because of the fish smell. Thus I suspect that any odorless oil-soluble anti-oxidant might work.)

And to answer your question about other skin care products--I'm not using any except for the oral ceremides noted above.

Thanks for that. Have you experimented with niacinamide powder (topically) either in the OO/ascorbyl palmitate concoction or independently? Do you have a preferred source for ascorbyl palmitate powder?

#21 Olafur Pall Olafsson

  • Guest
  • 24 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Iceland

Posted 07 April 2014 - 03:10 AM

You might want to revise your understanding, especially with regard to reduced glutathione.

I beg to differ. I don't think whether it is reduced or not matters in the case of the bioavailability of ingested glutathione, for several reasons:
1) Both the reduced form and the oxidized form of glutathione will be hydrolyzed in the digestive tract.
2) Even if some small portion of the ingested glutathione manages to escape the stomach and reach the small intestines before being hydrolyzed, whether it is found in its reduced or oxidized form will depend much more on the overall redox environment in the digestive tract (which will favor either form) rather than on what form was ingested.
3) Even if the ratio of reduced to oxidized glutathione were higher in the intestines after ingestion of the reduced form compared with the oxidized form, that still might not matter much because it may well be that only one of the forms is absorbed. F.ex. if only the reduced form were absorbed then the oxidized form would have to be converted to the reduced form anyways, before being absorbed, and the effect would be the same regardless of which form you consumed.
4) Regardless of what form is consumed, upon absorption, once the glutathione is inside the intestinal cells, the ratio of reduced/oxidized glutathione within the cell depends on the total redox environment inside the cells, wich usually strongly favors the reduced form. This is important because during absorption it isn't absorbed directly into the blood but has to enter the intestinal cells first.

See here--Reversal of age-associated decline in immune responsiveness by dietary glutathione supplementation in mice.

And here--Enhanced Glutathione Levels in Blood and Buccal Cells by Oral Glutathione Supplementation

Thanks for the references, and this goes for everyone else in this thread that provided peer reviewed references, I always appreciate that. However, while these two studies show increased glutathione concentrations in cells and blood of animals and humans, that does not prove it is bioavailable. It might as well have been hydrolyzed to it's corresponding amino acids, and after being absorbed the amino acids were then used by cells to produce glutathione. To determine this we would need to see a study administering radiolabeled glutathione or something similar to accertain that the glutathione that is found in the blood or tissues is the glutathione that was ingested not that which was merely produced in the body.

There's conflicting information on oral glutathione.

Thanks for the references. I don't have time to go over them in detail, but more comments on this below.

It seems like one would have to ingest many grams of oral glutathione to have any sort of effect, due to intestinal hydrolysis. Being an expensive substance, ingesting grams doesn't seem like a cost-effective, and therefore practical, method of raising glutathione levels. I have to agree with Olafur that these positive experiences seem to me to be the product of placebo.

I agree. One would likely need several grams of glutathione for it to have significant benefits, and that certainly is not cost effective.

There's conflicting information on oral glutathione.

No kidding! These groups of researchers have come to nearly opposite conclusions. And with the study you referenced, the p=.7 suggests that there was no difference at all between the two groups in gluthathione concentration. Which makes no sense, especially with the obvious benefits many are seeing from it.

I think you're being a bit too quick on judgement here. I don't see the info being very conflicting. I didn't have time to read through all the studies so correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that none of the studies used any method (such as radiolabeling) to measure whether the raised glutathione was caused by actually absorbed glutathione or merely by glutathione produced by amino acids supplied by the ingested glutathione. If you ingest glutathione and all of it were to be hydrolyzed an then large part of the amino acides absorbed and becoming available as substrate for glutathione production, how much glutathione ends up being produced and whether it reaches significance depends on several factors such as how healthy the animal or person is and whether the animal or person is already getting plenty of the amino acids needed for glutathione production or not. So it is not strange to me if some studies show a rise in glutathione upon ingestion while others do not.

Overall I still think glutathione is likely to have very poor bioavailability in humans, and because of this it is mostly worthless. However there are clearly some studies showing raised glutathione levels after oral ingestion of it and I think this is caused by it being produced by the amino acids that were formed by digesting the ingested glutathione with little to no part of this being caused by it being absorbed intact. Please note that I didn't have time to read over all the studies in this thread (I'm way too busy working on the Live120Plus project) but my points above are based on my prior knowledge on the metabolism of ingested compounds, the redox environment of various compartments of the body, and the general absorption mechanisms of various compounds. I think I will leave it at this. I hope this helped. :)
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#22 Turnbuckle

  • Member
  • 3,669 posts
  • 1,510
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 07 April 2014 - 11:10 AM

Overall I still think glutathione is likely to have very poor bioavailability in humans, and because of this it is mostly worthless.


There are too many illogical statements in your post to argue with, but the essence is found in the statement above. You seem to have reached a conclusion and built a website around it, and are now defending it at all costs. Doesn't matter to me all. I'm not a researcher in this area and have no interest in it except for my own use. And I have found it to be very good, better than NAC, which I took for a while but quickly gave up because it was too harsh on the digestive system. I do take it--1 gm of Setria glutathione--with my regime of 3 grams of C and 2 grams of niacin that I was taking before, and those co-factors may have something to do with it.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 07 April 2014 - 11:39 AM.

  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#23 maximum411

  • Guest
  • 43 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Massachusetts

Posted 07 April 2014 - 11:58 AM

No, Olafur is right, and in general any oral supplementation with an enzyme (other than digestive enzymes, which do not need to be absorbed into the bloodstream) is worthless.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#24 Olafur Pall Olafsson

  • Guest
  • 24 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Iceland

Posted 07 April 2014 - 03:52 PM

Overall I still think glutathione is likely to have very poor bioavailability in humans, and because of this it is mostly worthless.


There are too many illogical statements in your post to argue with, but the essence is found in the statement above.

If you are so sure of this, then I invite you to go ahead and point out exactly what is illogical about them and why? You have not given me a single example of illogical statements (the one you quoted above is certainly logical based on what I have written in this thread) and without doing so your comments only serve to make you sound dumb!

I was hoping I was more welcome here. People like you, that do not value or even recognice sound advice and honest contributions but instead attempt to put them down with insults because it doesn't fit their "anecdotal experience" are one reason I haven't joined Longecity until just recently. There are some very smart and knowledgeable people on this board. There are also some that aren't quite as smart, or are perhaps very smart but just have limited knowledge and understanding on the human body and life-extension, because it is not their field. The latter group is just as welcome as the former, as far as I am concerned, as long as they realize their limitations and do not pretent do know it all and put down those that have more extensive knowledge and are trying to give sound advice. Being smart is not about knowing everything, it is about knowing what you don't know and only speaking up when you know what you are talking about.

You seem to have reached a conclusion and built a website around it, and are now defending it at all costs.

How about doing a little background check before making stupid and insulting statements like that, like actually spending 5 minutes reading the outline of the content the website will contain! If you had done so you might have realized that I have not reached a conclusion on glutathione and built a website around it. The website will contain info on every practical method to extend life right now, and indirect methods to increase glutathione are only a very tiny fraction of that info. With respect to me having reached a conclusion, that is not true. I didn't say it was cast in stone, I said this is what I think is most likely given my current knowledge but that I do not have the time to look into this in more detail now. And my conclusion can and will change if I come across new evidence that indicates I am not correct. And if it looks like I had reached a conclusion quickly without doing or sharing lots of research here, that is because I have already done a lot of research in areas related to this.

Note that while I just joined this board, I am no newcomer to life-extension. I have been researching life-extension for about a decade now (and most of it for myself personally) and have been doing paid work in the field for over 2 years. I have also acquired a BS degree in nutrition. My past research certainly includes research on the pharmacokinetics of different compounds administered by various routes, as well as the antioxidant network in the human body, glutathione being one part of that. Next time I advice you to do a background check on new posters you reply to before making statements that suggest they are incompetent or have no idea what they are talking about.

Doesn't matter to me all. I'm not a researcher in this area and have no interest in it except for my own use.

Well obviously you are not a researcher in this area, you have made that clear with your comments. I am not a researcher in this area either, in the sense that I don't do lab research and haven't done lab research on glutathione. But I am a literature researcher and I have even done paid literature research work on glutathione specifically!

And I have found it to be very good, better than NAC, which I took for a while but quickly gave up because it was too harsh on the digestive system. I do take it--1 gm of Setria glutathione--with my regime of 3 grams of C and 2 grams of niacin that I was taking before, and those co-factors may have something to do with it.

Thanks for sharing this, this is interesting info. Unfortunately it is not of much value with respect to the benefits or lack of benefits of glutathione, because it is only an anecdotal case report, and not even very scientific at that. In any case I have already made clear some possible reasons for the supposed positive effects you are feeling from taking glutathione, and I am not repeating myself on that. And if you don't value that analysis of mine, then hopefully someone else here does. :)
  • like x 1

#25 drtom

  • Guest
  • 83 posts
  • 17
  • Location:Russia/Australia

Posted 10 April 2014 - 05:34 AM

I have read with interest the different opinions here about the value or otherwise of GSH supplementation.

 

If I may venture an opinion:

 

I also used to avoid GSH supplementation because generally the literature suggested it was ineffective.

However, comparison of the papers yielded enough to convince me to start using it.

Essentially, I place more weight on the 2013 paper by Ritchie et al  than on the 1992 paper by Witschi et al.

The reasons are that the earlier paper looked at the effect of just a single, large dose. They looked at the plasma concentrations of not only GSH but also cysteine and glutamate and found them unchanged. (Surely, if the GSH was digested, one would see an increase in cysteine levels, even if not GSH levels?)

Plasma levels of substances can spike and drop very quickly. Perhaps they missed it? Perhaps there was a problem with their detection method?

 

By contrast, the study by Ritchie looked at the effects of supplementation of GSH for 6 months!

This is a reasonable timeframe for accumulation of GSH or for extra synthesis of GSH.

The paper states they noted increases in concentration of GSH in not only plasma, but cells.

In addition, they noted an effect of higher GSH in the group that took 1g per day.

 

Having read the papers carefully and compared them, I knew which of the 2 opposing views carried more weight.

So now I also supplement with the "Setria" brand. I don't care if the extra GSH is gained by direct absorption or by synthesis of the digested AA's.

The important thing is that it works.

 

Sometimes being "married" to a position or stance can be counter-productive....

 

Dr Tom


  • like x 4

#26 blood

  • Guest
  • 926 posts
  • 254
  • Location:...

Posted 10 April 2014 - 09:40 AM

It isn't that controversial, is it, to suggest that some di- or tri-peptides might be absorbed & enter the blood intact.

I'm thinking of the proposed mechanism for antihypertensive effects of whey protein & fish peptides (peptides are absorbed intact, & act as mild ACE inhibitors).



#27 Olafur Pall Olafsson

  • Guest
  • 24 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Iceland

Posted 10 April 2014 - 05:04 PM

I have read with interest the different opinions here about the value or otherwise of GSH supplementation.
 
If I may venture an opinion:
 
I also used to avoid GSH supplementation because generally the literature suggested it was ineffective.
However, comparison of the papers yielded enough to convince me to start using it.
Essentially, I place more weight on the 2013 paper by Ritchie et al  than on the 1992 paper by Witschi et al.
The reasons are that the earlier paper looked at the effect of just a single, large dose. They looked at the plasma concentrations of not only GSH but also cysteine and glutamate and found them unchanged. (Surely, if the GSH was digested, one would see an increase in cysteine levels, even if not GSH levels?)
Plasma levels of substances can spike and drop very quickly. Perhaps they missed it? Perhaps there was a problem with their detection method?

I agree, the unchanged level of cysteine and glutamate are interesting and might indicate that some of it was absorbed intact. But as you mention there are several possible reasons for this and the questions you posed are good and would need to be answered. I will likely be answering these very questions myself later on as part of the research for the Live120Plus.com project. As of now it is quite far off from completion and I am immersed with work on other things in that project so I am not sure when I will get to research on glutathione ingestion. With respect to this, we are in need for paid researchers to help us work on Live120Plus and if anyone here is interested then please contact me.
 

By contrast, the study by Ritchie looked at the effects of supplementation of GSH for 6 months!
This is a reasonable timeframe for accumulation of GSH or for extra synthesis of GSH.
The paper states they noted increases in concentration of GSH in not only plasma, but cells.
In addition, they noted an effect of higher GSH in the group that took 1g per day.
 
Having read the papers carefully and compared them, I knew which of the 2 opposing views carried more weight.
So now I also supplement with the "Setria" brand. I don't care if the extra GSH is gained by direct absorption or by synthesis of the digested AA's.
The important thing is that it works.

Your last sentence is right on point and I couldn't agree more. Whether something works is more important than how. That is not to say knowing how isn't also important or valuable. In the case of glutathione I would consider it very valuable to know what exactly is the mechanism for the raise in studies that show a rise in its levels, since if e.g. absorption of cysteine is the reason then it is much cheaper to take cysteine.
 

Sometimes being "married" to a position or stance can be counter-productive....

I totally agree.
 

It isn't that controversial, is it, to suggest that some di- or tri-peptides might be absorbed & enter the blood intact.
I'm thinking of the proposed mechanism for antihypertensive effects of whey protein & fish peptides (peptides are absorbed intact, & act as mild ACE inhibitors).

Good point. Yes there are plenty of peptides that are absorbed and this mainly applies to very short peptides like di- or tri-peptides. In fact when protein is digested and absorbed it isn't all broken fully to amino acids, some bits of di-, and tri-peptides are absorbed in the digestive tract without needing to be broken down further first. I am aware of whey and fish peptides working as mild ACE inhibitors and if I recall they are also very short. In any case, it is mainly very short peptides (di- and tri-peptides) that are absorbed during digestion. Larger ones are almost always broken down to smaller bits and even if they would survive the route through the stomach to the intestines they would not be absorbed in their full length form.

Anyways, since glutathione is a tripeptide it is a likely candidate for absorption in the intestine. The main problem I is escaping the hydrolysis in the stomach. In this respect it maybe more likely to escape the stomach intact if taken with a large glass of water on a fasting stomach (to dilute the stomach acids). But even if it escapes through the stomach intact, there are enzymes in the digestive tract that break down glutathione. There are so many factors at play here and I am curious to do more research on this when I get to it. :-)



#28 ta5

  • Guest
  • 851 posts
  • 258
  • Location: 

Posted 06 May 2014 - 11:56 AM

Eur J Nutr. 2014 May 5. 
Richie JP Jr1, Nichenametla S, Neidig W, Calcagnotto A, Haley JS, Schell TD, Muscat JE.
PURPOSE:
Glutathione (GSH), the most abundant endogenous antioxidant, is a critical regulator of oxidative stress and immune function. While oral GSH has been shown to be bioavailable in laboratory animal models, its efficacy in humans has not been established. Our objective was to determine the long-term effectiveness of oral GSH supplementation on body stores of GSH in healthy adults.
METHODS:
A 6-month randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of oral GSH (250 or 1,000 mg/day) on GSH levels in blood, erythrocytes, plasma, lymphocytes and exfoliated buccal mucosal cells was conducted in 54 non-smoking adults. Secondary outcomes on a subset of subjects included a battery of immune markers.
RESULTS:
GSH levels in blood increased after 1, 3 and 6 months versus baseline at both doses. At 6 months, mean GSH levels increased 30-35 % in erythrocytes, plasma and lymphocytes and 260 % in buccal cells in the high-dose group (P < 0.05). GSH levels increased 17 and 29 % in blood and erythrocytes, respectively, in the low-dose group (P < 0.05). In most cases, the increases were dose and time dependent, and levels returned to baseline after a 1-month washout period. A reduction in oxidative stress in both GSH dose groups was indicated by decreases in the oxidized to reduced glutathione ratio in whole blood after 6 months. Natural killer cytotoxicity increased >twofold in the high-dose group versus placebo (P < 0.05) at 3 months.
CONCLUSIONS:
These findings show, for the first time, that daily consumption of GSH supplements was effective at increasing body compartment stores of GSH.
PMID: 24791752


#29 JohnD60

  • Guest
  • 540 posts
  • 68
  • Location:Colorado

Posted 13 May 2014 - 05:30 PM

I bought some of the injectable glutathione for experimenting:

http://www.relumins....in-c-with-gluta

It did not come with any directions. It seems logical that I break open one of the Vitamin C solution ampoules and transfer that to one of the dry vials with the glutathione powder. Mix it together then inject it. But I was hoping someone that has injected this would confirm this is the proper process.



⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#30 Adamzski

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 667 posts
  • 58
  • Location:South Korea

Posted 13 May 2014 - 05:58 PM

My gf gave me an IV on the weekend, lol she was going to do it the prior weekend but wouldn't do it until I thoroughly cleaned my place..

 

60mg of it along with some vitamin C and an hour or so on a drip. I do feel good probably placebo, can't say there is anything that out of the ordinary, my skin looks great but it could be placebo/wishful thinking.

 

She is looking great, she is 23 and I have noticed her skin looking better after I came back from spending 2 months in Thai/AU. Her slight pimples have decreased and she just is more luminous, she hardly ever wears makeup so its easy to tell, a definate improvement of her skin after maybe I think 6 times of using it


Edited by Adamzski, 13 May 2014 - 06:16 PM.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: glutathione

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users