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

Photo
- - - - -

Test results after 3+ years

titanovo telomere test

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

#1 Telo

  • Guest
  • 46 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 24 March 2017 - 08:44 AM


I recently got my results from my Titanovo telomere test.

This was 3 years and 3 months after my first telomere test (Telome).

I haven't been very consistent so it's hard to know for sure but my guess is that

at least 70% of the time I have been taking at least one of the following products:

Cycloastragenol (mostly Crackaging and Terraternal)

Isagenix Product B / Isagenesis 

TA-65 (in total max 4 or 5 months)

 

I had been taking Cycloastragenol for about a year before the first test.

 

Here are some excerpts:

 

__________________________________________________________________________

 

September 2013 (Telome):

Average Telomere Length (bases): 6713

Chronological age: 44

"the average length of your telomeres matches the average telomere length typical

of a person approximately 41 years old"

"your average telomere length is 157 bases above the average telomere

length for your age group"

 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

December 2016 (Titanovo):

RELATIVE TELOMERE VALUE: 0.97 T/S

ABSOLUTE TELOMERE VALUE: 4.27 kbp

 

"Your telomeres are in the 7.28 percentile. This means that your telomeres are longer

than 92.72 % of men of your age."

 

"your telomere length is longer than expected for your age at about 0.35 kilo base pairs"

 

"While calculation of biological age is a controversial topic, and Titanovo does not endorse it,

here we provide a calculation of biological age for clients seeking it.

Actual age: 47

Biological age: 32"
_______________________________________________________________________________
 
I guess you have to double the Titanovo 4.27kbp number to be able to compare to the
6413 bp in the Telome results? Does that sound reasonable?
 
So in that case I have gained 8.54 - 6.41 = 2.13 kbp in 3 years.
And in terms of "telomere age" I have gotten 9 years younger!
Of course I have to take this with a grain of salt since it's two different companies and
maybe different measurement methods. Telome used saliva and Titanovo used buccal swab.
And I've also heard that there's a signifikant margin of error regardless of the testing method. 
But anyway I think the results are very encouraging!
 
Another thing that may have influenced the results: During the last 3 years I have also changed my diet 
quite substantially. I now eat mostly a whole food plant based diet, trying to minimize sugar, oil and salt
and other refined foods. As you may or may not know, this kind of diet has shown some promising results
in terms of it's effect on telomeres.

  • Informative x 3

#2 PeaceAndProsperity

  • Guest
  • 1,194 posts
  • -189
  • Location:Heaven

Posted 26 March 2017 - 04:48 PM

My advice is to retest with the first company. The second company does not look trustworthy for some reason. And provide a fake age, like 30 years old or 50.

Anyway have you noticed any serious changes in your physical appearance?

 

Btw I appreciate you testing this. Will help other people determine whether the supps are worth it.


Edited by PeaceAndProsperity, 26 March 2017 - 04:55 PM.

  • Needs references x 1

#3 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 26 March 2017 - 09:01 PM

There is something that I dont understand...

 

September 2013 (Telome):

Average Telomere Length (bases): 6713

 

December 2016 (Titanovo):

ABSOLUTE TELOMERE VALUE: 4.27 kbp

 

That means, that your telomeres length is declining afterall.

You may ask the first company if they mean base pairs by the word "(bases)"

If so, then from 2013 to 2016 the telomere length has shortened from 6713 to 4270 base pairs.

If so then it comes the question why the two companies give you progressively younger results. Maybe they have different ideas about the normal age refferent value for the telomere length.

 


  • Good Point x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#4 Telo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 46 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 26 March 2017 - 10:07 PM

My advice is to retest with the first company. The second company does not look trustworthy for some reason. And provide a fake age, like 30 years old or 50.

Anyway have you noticed any serious changes in your physical appearance?

 

Btw I appreciate you testing this. Will help other people determine whether the supps are worth it.

 

I would have retested with Telome (mostly to get a result that's easier to compare) but the company doesn't seem to exist anymore. 

Whether Titanovo is more or less trustworthy than others I don't know.

 

As you might know the biological or telomere age they give here is just a statistical number that you get by comparing against

the average length for others of different chronological ages. Of course there are differences of opinion about the 

relevance of this. My guess is that it's probably one of several factors that constitutes your real biological age. 

 

Physical appearance: People who don't know me generally seem to guess I'm 10-15 years younger than I am but that also happened

before taking the supps. In some ways I feel younger than 5 years ago (more energy etc.) On the other hand I continue to get more and more strands of gray hair. Another sign of aging is in my running - I'm not as fast on shorter distances (1 or 2 km) as I was in my 20 and 30's. Or at least it takes much more work for any improvement. 



#5 Telo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 46 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 26 March 2017 - 10:20 PM

There is something that I dont understand...

 

September 2013 (Telome):

Average Telomere Length (bases): 6713

 

December 2016 (Titanovo):

ABSOLUTE TELOMERE VALUE: 4.27 kbp

 

That means, that your telomeres length is declining afterall.

You may ask the first company if they mean base pairs by the word "(bases)"

If so, then from 2013 to 2016 the telomere length has shortened from 6713 to 4270 base pairs.

If so then it comes the question why the two companies give you progressively younger results. Maybe they have different ideas about the normal age refferent value for the telomere length.

 

I think it's because you can present it in two ways. I don't know if it has to do with counting either one or both of the DNA strands of the chromosome. I hope you are supposed to multiply 4.27 by 2 which makes 8.54 kbp. I have e-mailed them and asked about this.   



#6 HaplogroupW

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Flyover country
  • NO

Posted 27 March 2017 - 04:42 AM

Thanks for posting Telo. I didn't know about Titanovo. I just ordered the kit from them. I posted on another thread my results from TeloYears. It will be interesting to compare the two. TeloYears was using blood for the sample, as against Titanovo using buccal/leukocytes.

 

Will report back when I get the results. It was only a few months ago I collected the sample for TeloYears. If the results are inconsistent then I guess we will be scratching our heads trying to decide if it's 1) Variance in results 2) Error in one or the other or 3) difference between haematopoetic vs buccal and leukocyte cells.


  • Informative x 1

#7 Telo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 46 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 30 March 2017 - 10:58 PM

 

There is something that I dont understand...

 

September 2013 (Telome):

Average Telomere Length (bases): 6713

 

December 2016 (Titanovo):

ABSOLUTE TELOMERE VALUE: 4.27 kbp

 

That means, that your telomeres length is declining afterall.

You may ask the first company if they mean base pairs by the word "(bases)"

If so, then from 2013 to 2016 the telomere length has shortened from 6713 to 4270 base pairs.

If so then it comes the question why the two companies give you progressively younger results. Maybe they have different ideas about the normal age refferent value for the telomere length.

 

I think it's because you can present it in two ways. I don't know if it has to do with counting either one or both of the DNA strands of the chromosome. I hope you are supposed to multiply 4.27 by 2 which makes 8.54 kbp. I have e-mailed them and asked about this.   

 

My e-mail question to Titanovo:

"In everything I've read/heard the cells begin to die at 3 to 5 kbp and correlates with old persons.

Yet my value of 4.27 you say is like an average 32 year old person.

Do I take this value and multiple by 2 if I want to compare with the way it's shown in some other cases?"

 

Answer from Titanovo:

"It’s hard to compare KBPs received from different studies, different cell types and using different collection methods. In reality it is even quite impossible to exactly measure telomere length even using electronic microscopy. So all laboratories use their own calibration profiles and the KBPs received in different labs shouldn’t be compared side-to-side

3-5 kbps number is just what generally obtained using TRF method. We use a different method, and our KBPs tend to be shorter, but this doesn’t actually matter, because what does matter is the realtive length in compison to our data pool."

 

Anyway, I plan to take a new test by the end of 2017. Probably Titanovo again. If Lifelength ever gets available in my country I may want to try that too because I've heard good things about them.


  • Good Point x 1

#8 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 31 March 2017 - 05:12 AM

e.g. the greedy bungler propaganda.

 

ours ours ours. use only ours! you happened to slip and fall into our bungler's clutches. Don't go to any other's bungler's clutches! Never other's clutches at all ! Test ot again. With us!!!!

 

If there isnt a single standart for teomere length, why to waste your money for nonsences?

 

If you ask me, learn as much as you can about the method and the cells they used to measure your telomeres, write it down somewhere, together with your measurment, and simply live your life and wait for the technology to become better.



#9 platypus

  • Guest
  • 2,342 posts
  • 236
  • Location:Italy

Posted 31 March 2017 - 11:24 AM

Different tests are not comparable. Also, is it known how much the reading change from week to week?



⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#10 orion602

  • Guest
  • 82 posts
  • 56

Posted 31 March 2017 - 04:58 PM

It would be interesting to have ones DNA extracted once every year and keep it frozen until there are 3+ samples. Then have them tested with one company, under some coded label, so they would not know when they were taken. It would be best for them to be placed on same chip for analysis, to get most significant results.


  • Agree x 1

#11 tunt01

  • Guest, Advisor
  • 2,306 posts
  • 411
  • Location:NW

Posted 01 April 2017 - 02:01 AM

I'm pretty sure you should be looking at Median telomere length, not average or mean.  The lengths of telomeres are not normally distributed and they have quite a long tail.


  • Agree x 2

#12 HaplogroupW

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Flyover country
  • NO

Posted 12 May 2017 - 06:45 AM

I reported Titanovo results (and previously TeloYears results) over in other thread:

http://www.longecity...sting/?p=815309

 



#13 GreenPower

  • Guest
  • 201 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Europe

Posted 19 June 2017 - 05:48 PM

It's now been three years and one and a half month since I last tested my telemore length. Today I therefore sent one sample to "Repeat Diagnostics", another sample to "Life Length" and also took the usual "health check blood works".

 

During this time I've continued with a variant of the same regimen as last time. Mainly that includes "Standardized Astragalus" from Solgar and Cycloastragenol from Terraternal. I've also tried to cut back on carbs in general and sugar in particular..

 

I will get back with the results in a few weeks when I've got them.


  • like x 1

#14 Telo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 46 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 19 June 2017 - 07:36 PM

It's now been three years and one and a half month since I last tested my telemore length. Today I therefore sent one sample to "Repeat Diagnostics", another sample to "Life Length" and also took the usual "health check blood works".

 

During this time I've continued with a variant of the same regimen as last time. Mainly that includes "Standardized Astragalus" from Solgar and Cycloastragenol from Terraternal. I've also tried to cut back on carbs in general and sugar in particular..

 

I will get back with the results in a few weeks when I've got them.

 

Sounds interesting!  I'm eagerly awaiting your report :) 

 

When you say you tried to cut back on carbs, do you mean refined carbs?

Maybe this is the wrong forum but I'm just curious what your reasoning is in terms of carbs vs fat and telomeres/longevity.

 

Doesn't some of the Blue Zones consume a very high carb diet (whole food carbs)?

 

My average is probably around 70% carbs. These are from high quality, nutrient dense foods like fruits, veggies, intact whole grains, legumes, nuts and seeds). I try to minimise refined grains and added sugar.



#15 GreenPower

  • Guest
  • 201 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Europe

Posted 20 June 2017 - 08:11 AM

I'm not sure if you by "refined" carbs mean "carbs with a high glycemic index and/or load" or just "in nature not natural occurring carbs".

 

I would say that these recommendations from the "diet doctor" pretty much sums up my stance on what's healthy food and what's not. The main advantages with this diet are lower risks for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, alzheimers, and several other life-shortening diseases. I think it might be kind of pointless spending tens of thousands of dollars trying to extend your telomeres, health and life - if the stuff you eat gives you diseases that kills you. The main problem with this food, though, is that it's almost impossible to get it when eating out or being invited for dinner.

 

I think it's kind of interesting that humans have been equipped with two "main engines" for power creation, one using carbs as its main fuel and the other using fat/ketone bodies as its main fuel, but that almost no humans in the richer parts of the world make use of fat as a power source any longer. Instead we tend to transform carb-based food with high glycemix index/load into big fat deposits which are never used and in turn lead to various kinds of diseases.

 

The above recommendations are kind of "hardcore" and I think your diet looks like a "lite version" of it. I think different persons react differently on different kind of foods and if you have not yet weared out your pancreas or liver with over consumption of sugar and carbs with high glycemic index it will probably not cause you any problems.

 

The proponents for the dangers of eating "red meat" seem to base their theories mostly on associative observational studies and also seem to have problems with establishing any clear cause and effect. If their studies took into account what people usually eat together with read meat I think they they might come to different conclusions on what's causing problems. In the discussions about longevity these proponents also tend to bring up environmental aspects against red meat. Not because it has anything to do about longevity, but by trying to associate red meat with something bad. This with a quite narrow perspective based on non-proven assumptions which doesn't take the big picture and actual reality into account.



#16 Telo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 46 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 21 June 2017 - 10:44 AM

I'm not sure if you by "refined" carbs mean "carbs with a high glycemic index and/or load" or just "in nature not natural occurring carbs".

 

I would say that these recommendations from the "diet doctor" pretty much sums up my stance on what's healthy food and what's not. The main advantages with this diet are lower risks for cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, alzheimers, and several other life-shortening diseases. I think it might be kind of pointless spending tens of thousands of dollars trying to extend your telomeres, health and life - if the stuff you eat gives you diseases that kills you. The main problem with this food, though, is that it's almost impossible to get it when eating out or being invited for dinner.

 

I think it's kind of interesting that humans have been equipped with two "main engines" for power creation, one using carbs as its main fuel and the other using fat/ketone bodies as its main fuel, but that almost no humans in the richer parts of the world make use of fat as a power source any longer. Instead we tend to transform carb-based food with high glycemix index/load into big fat deposits which are never used and in turn lead to various kinds of diseases.

 

The above recommendations are kind of "hardcore" and I think your diet looks like a "lite version" of it. I think different persons react differently on different kind of foods and if you have not yet weared out your pancreas or liver with over consumption of sugar and carbs with high glycemic index it will probably not cause you any problems.

 

The proponents for the dangers of eating "red meat" seem to base their theories mostly on associative observational studies and also seem to have problems with establishing any clear cause and effect. If their studies took into account what people usually eat together with read meat I think they they might come to different conclusions on what's causing problems. In the discussions about longevity these proponents also tend to bring up environmental aspects against red meat. Not because it has anything to do about longevity, but by trying to associate red meat with something bad. This with a quite narrow perspective based on non-proven assumptions which doesn't take the big picture and actual reality into account.

Thanks  for your detailed and interesting answer. We agree about many things regarding diet. It seems the differences are: I mostly (99%) avoid animal products plus I don’t avoid carbs except when I’m on fasting mimicking diet. We both probably eat healthier than 90 % of the population. I agree that taking telelomerase activators is not enough. Diet and lifestyle is a key factor.

On that point; have you seen this Ornish study where the subjects’ telomeres got longer?

 

http://www.thelancet...0366-8/fulltext

 

I’m very familiar with Diet Doctor, or Kostdoktorn as he’s called here in his home country. The LCHF movement here in Sweden has done some good in terms of advocating the ”food as medicine” concept.  But here is my problem with them: First they say you shouldn’t demonize fat and then they do the same thing but with carbs instead. I agree the low fat dogma was partly wrong –some high fat foods are very healthy. But saying you should avoid super healthy foods like beans  because they are high in carbs seems dogmatic too.  We don’t eat fats and carbs. We eat foods. We eat lard or nuts (and yes nuts ARE healthier). We eat white bread or wheat berries (which have diametrically opposite health effects).

 

About LCHF preventing chronic disease: Yes cutting the junk foods and added sugar decreases your risk. But heart disease and diabetes is not caused by brown rice, beans, potatoes or fruit. Lots of people are even reversing these diseases with a high starch whole food plant based diet.

 

About ketosis /fat burning: I’ve done a couple of 5 day water fasts and now I’m trying to emulate the fasting mimicking diet (also 5 days) that comes from the fascinating research by Valter Longo. I’m sure this, in combination with shorter intermittant fasts here and there is very good for health and longevity. The FMD diet is of course  low in carbs but an interesting fact is that Longo, one of the leading researchers in longevity and fasting recommends that in your normal day to day diet the main energy source should be carbohydrates and not fat.

 

About red meat: Yes, like with smoking, there hasn’t been any human randomized contolled clinical trials proving beyond doubt red meat is unhealthy. Mostly epidemiological studies. But there are several probable causes: high methionine content(not good for longevity), the oxidation-causing heme iron, the saturated fat, the carnitine which results in TMAO that causes atherosclerosis, Neu5Gc, and animal protein which raises IGF-1 and increases cancer risk. 


  • Agree x 1

#17 GreenPower

  • Guest
  • 201 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Europe

Posted 28 June 2017 - 03:52 PM

Interesting study which I see have been supervised by Elizabeth Blackburn. Unfortunately this small pilot study might be too small in order to see what the respective results from the changes in "diet", "activity", "stress management", and "social support" are.

 

I haven't paid for reading the study, but it would be interesting to know how they have designed the four parts of the regimen, e.g. if "diet" mean "Mediterranean diet" or something completely different and if "stress management" mean "meditation", "mindfulness", "yoga", "relax tape", or "playing with a fidget spinner" :)

 

Btw, today I got both the results from Life Length and my ordinary blood works from the health check. Unfortunately FedEx messed up the transportation to Repeat Diagnostics, so I'm still waiting for them to get back on whether the sample was viable for measurement or not. I'll wait with posting any results until I know if I need to send a new sample to Vancouver or not.

 

 



#18 Telo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 46 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 28 June 2017 - 08:30 PM

Interesting study which I see have been supervised by Elizabeth Blackburn. Unfortunately this small pilot study might be too small in order to see what the respective results from the changes in "diet", "activity", "stress management", and "social support" are.

 

I haven't paid for reading the study, but it would be interesting to know how they have designed the four parts of the regimen, e.g. if "diet" mean "Mediterranean diet" or something completely different and if "stress management" mean "meditation", "mindfulness", "yoga", "relax tape", or "playing with a fidget spinner" :)

 

Btw, today I got both the results from Life Length and my ordinary blood works from the health check. Unfortunately FedEx messed up the transportation to Repeat Diagnostics, so I'm still waiting for them to get back on whether the sample was viable for measurement or not. I'll wait with posting any results until I know if I need to send a new sample to Vancouver or not.

 

In the Blackburn / Ornish telomere study, the diet part was the same Whole Food Plant Based diet that Ornish has used in all his studies, reversing heart disease, lowering PSA levels in early stage prostate cancer patients etc. Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, no added oil, no added sugar. In other words lots and lots of carbohydrates.



#19 GreenPower

  • Guest
  • 201 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Europe

Posted 01 August 2017 - 06:14 PM

A few minutes ago I got my results from Repeat Diagnostics and I've now got a full battery of data to walk through.

 

Initial conclusions are however not positive. My "Test Run 9 (38 months)" using both Cycloastragenol and Standard Astragalus in the morning and the evening (without one or several items from earlier regimens) - was unfortunately a failure.

 

I need to seriously consider how to tweek the design of the upcoming Test Run 10.

 



#20 PeaceAndProsperity

  • Guest
  • 1,194 posts
  • -189
  • Location:Heaven

Posted 01 August 2017 - 11:40 PM

A few minutes ago I got my results from Repeat Diagnostics and I've now got a full battery of data to walk through.

 

Initial conclusions are however not positive. My "Test Run 9 (38 months)" using both Cycloastragenol and Standard Astragalus in the morning and the evening (without one or several items from earlier regimens) - was unfortunately a failure.

 

I need to seriously consider how to tweek the design of the upcoming Test Run 10.

Ýour telomeres have not improved?

 



#21 Nate-2004

  • Guest
  • 2,322 posts
  • 320
  • Location:Philadelphia
  • NO

Posted 03 August 2017 - 04:02 PM

If we want better test results, spend your lab money on this instead:

 

https://www.lifespan...biomarker-scan/



#22 Keizo

  • Guest
  • 413 posts
  • 27
  • Location:Sweden
  • NO

Posted 01 December 2017 - 04:41 AM

since you mentioned them, crackaging still up and running? I tried ordering some time ago and it gave me error



⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#23 Telo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 46 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 03 December 2017 - 12:24 AM

since you mentioned them, crackaging still up and running? I tried ordering some time ago and it gave me error

 

Don't know. My last order was in october and there was no problem. Have you tried both crackaging.com and amazon.com?

 

PS. Since it seems you're located in Sweden like me, Do you know any telomere testing service available here at the moment?



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#24 Logic

  • Guest
  • 2,650 posts
  • 570
  • Location:Kimberley, South Africa
  • NO

Posted 03 December 2017 - 07:31 PM

It's been over a year since I looked into this, so it's all IIRC.
Also I dont have the time for links etc, so you will have to verify all this yourself.
Google Site Search in the search dropdown menu...

Very little Astragalus makes it through the gut lining, yet it does seem to work..?
I did find a study showing that it did have access to the stem and progenitor cells that become the new gut lining.
As the gut is 'replaced/renewed' every 5 days, there's a very good chance that the gut ages faster than the rest of us.
The gut is the barrier between you and instant death by septicemia and becomes ever more leaky with age.
This increases systemic inflammation, nf-kappa B, CD38 etc.
And sure enough; I found plenty of evidence to prove that telomerase levels are inversely proportional to systemic inflammation.

So besides Astragalus, Purslane (free, probably growing between the paving stones outside), BHT, etc,  anything that decreases systemic inflammation  could be considered a telomerase activator.

Sources of inflamation are:

  1. Ever more leaky gut.
  2. Low level chronic infection.
  3. AGE etc acumulation.
  4. Others?

1:
Lactoferrin will negate the effects of Lipopolysaccharide.  I don't recall how.

As you are basically living on bacteria shit; being fussy about which bacteria are shitting in your gut is a good idea.
Feed and seed the good and kill off the bad.  Besides antibiotics, VCO does a good job of controlling candida etc.  Its also slimming which points to it killing off/controlling some of the bad players.
The ideal for selectively killing off bad players would be bacteriophages.

2: 

DRACO, Bavituximab, etc arent easily available.  Again, VCO stripps the lipid layer off virii, exposing them to the immune sys.  BHT works similarly and stops lipid peroxidation.

3:

Metals/heavy metals act as a catalyst for AGE formation, so chelation.
There is plenty of info on AGE blockers/breakers here.  Most are also chelators.

A last thought: 

Some cell types express telomerase more than others.  Stem and progenitor cells being at the top of the list.  Now aren't they the exact cells you would want to express telomerase in the most? 

ie:  The question of which cells are tested for telomere length increases should be considered.




 


  • like x 1




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users