Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 Thanks very much, Jeff, for taking the time just to type that in a form e can communicate it to others. I have no problem with any of your comments (surprised, huh?). I basically get mine from foods, except selenium (Multivitamin) which I like to be more precise than a nut, and l-carnitine. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Novick Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 2:34 PM Subject: RE: [ ] Re: lowering total cholesterol >> what do you think of Walford's list of supplements pg 165-167, 120 yo? I will list the nutrient, (Dr Walfords Recommendations in paranthesis) and my comments. First, I agree with his general recommendation of not supplementing more than 50-100% of the RDA for most nutrients. Vit A, (None), I agree. Can increase risk for Osteo and fractures. In addition, the RDA was lowered since the publication of the book and an UL (upper limit) was set for the first time of 10,000 Vit D, (800 - 1000 including amt from sun/dairy), I agree. In some areas of the country/world, especially in the Northern climates where there is less sun exposure and along with everyones fear of the sun and constant 24 hr use of sunscreen, I agree. Vit E, (100-200 d alpha, 100-200 d-gamma, 100 IU tocotrienol). Mixed tocophorols are better however, if someone is on a statin, I wouldnt recommend this. There may be some benefit in reducing risk for Alzheimers, Macular Degeneration and certain cancers. And for most people, eating the typical way, Vit E may be difficult to get. So, I think this is more individual based on personal situation. I wouldnt give a generic recommendation Vit K; (400 mcg including food sources). I agree, but for most of us, especially CR-ON and other healthy vegetable eaters, this should be no problem getting it from food Vit C (500-100 in ester form) I disagree. I have concerns about excess vit c. I can post some data later, but we get way more than we need from a healthy diet. B1 (RDA) I agree B2 (RDA) I agree Niacin (100-300mg). I disagree. I agree with supplementing nicain where appropriate for lowering LDL and raising HDL but the amount needed is much more than this. So, I am not sure of the proposed benefit of this smaller amount. Folate (800) I agree but i would count in food sources towards the total. On a healthy diet, its easy to even get the 800. A typical diet is tough to get 200. So, shoot for 800. B6 (50mg) I dont see the need except in certain situations so this would be individual. Along with folate and B12 may be important for elevated homocysteine levels. B12 (200) agree. might even recommend more as absorbtion is very low and may go lower as people age. 500-1000 mcg is safe on a daily basis. Calcium (enough to get to RDA) I agree but also limit intake of salt, and get some weight bearing exercise. Magnesium (500 mg) i would agree with 400-500. Selenium (200) RDAs were lowered from 70 - 55 at the same time Vit A was lowered a year or two ago. With the change I would recommend 50-100 for most. And, as he says, eating a brazil nut or 2 a day can easily do it. Iron (none) I agree except in rare situations on a as needed basis zinc (no more than 30 mg) I agree Manganese (RDA ) i agree Chromium (50 mcg) I agree In diabetics, would even up it to 200 mcg with some magnesium and selenium. Alpha Lipoic Acid (50). For Peripheral Neurpoathy, around 600-1000 can help, so i would agree but with much more. Than the new formula from Dr Ames in which i think he recommends 100 (or 200?) which if someone wanted to take, I am OK with. Acetyl l carnitine (500) same as comment for Dr Ames formula Bio-flavonoids (500) I dont see the need in a healthy diet Co Q 10 : (100mg) If on a statin, I agree. Otherwise, debatable SAMe (200-400) Not in general Omega 3s (500-700 mg mixed EPA/DHA) I disagree, first get it from food. I think I got them all. If I missed one, let me know. I may add some more comments when I have some time over the weekend. RegardsJeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 >>I have no problem with any of your comments (surprised, huh?). I basically get mine from foods, except selenium (Multivitamin) which I like to be more precise than a nut, and l-carnitine. No, not suprised. Food should be the primary source and focus. There is so much we dont know that is in food, that is yet to be identified or replicated in pill form. Plus, there was this debate on a PBS between some of the leading longevity experts a few years back (Walford was on the panel) and supplements came up and their coments were interesting. If you havent read the debate it is interestng. Here are their comments The info on the debate is here (June 2000).... http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/healthsex/108/index.html The comments on supplements.... ROBERT: Roy, you're one of the leading authorities on the biology of aging. Your most recent book is The Anti-Aging Plan. Give us an overview of the primary factors in aging and what we can do to retard the inevitable. What should I be doing to live as long as I can? ROY: You should eat a diet low in calories but high in nutrients. There's evidence for the life-extending effectiveness of that [regimen]. Then you have to exercise and maybe take some supplements. These are the best measures we know of, at the moment. [cut] ROY: The main reason we see so many fads is that you can make a good argument for a number of things that ought to influence aging, like vitamin E. If you read the vitamin E literature, it looks as though vitamin E should have an effect on aging, but when you actually give it to animals and run a test, it doesn't. ROBERT: Do you take vitamins? ROY: I take a general multivitamin, but it's not a big part of my program. ART: I take antioxidants, such as E and C, which I do think are far more effective. And I take B-complex. ROBERT: I take vitamins, not because I believe they're all that effective but because other people say they are. I'd feel bad psychologically if I didn't take vitamins, and this negative placebo effect might make me sick. GREG: The real reason there are so many fads is because human beings so deeply crave a longer, healthier life--and therefore there's money to be made in the field. This is why, when we unravel our biology sufficiently, we'll almost certainly intervene and retard aging, regardless of the larger social issues. Longevity is just too compelling a temptation. ART: Fads develop because people want quick, easy solutions to problems. In truth, longevity relates to how you live your life on a day-to-day basis. It has nothing to do with some magic pill. ROBERT: What about some of the new chemicals, such as DHEA, melatonin, and the like? ROY: They haven't been shown, convincingly, to increase maximum life span in animal experiments, which is really the only indicator as to whether fundamental aging has been retarded. ROBERT: Many people are ingesting these chemicals. ROY: Some people argue that such-and-such ought to work, or might work, and this persuades other people to take it. But animal experiments should be conducted first, and generally they aren't. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 Hi All, Not all of you may be familiar with the below. Being from a long- standing CRer who works for a supplement maker. The below are notes from an attendee at the 2003 CR Conference. Rae – Supplements and CR -------------------------------- Caveat – he emphasizes that he tries not to be biased, but " he sells pills for a living " Important – start with healthy rodents (or people) and see what extends lifespan. CR is only thing that has been shown to do this consistently. Antioxidants don't extend lifespan, when you start w/ healthy animals – CoQ10, ALA, Vitamin E, ALCAR, But you might say – it can't hurt. But it can hurt you! • Eg. Retinol increases your fracture risk *a lot*. • Too much zinc is very bad for you • Too much manganese is bad – we already pretty high from veggies • Too much alpha form of Vitamin E depresses gamma form below a healthy diet with no supplements - bad news • Beta carotene – increased cancer in smokers Moral – lots of issues, and really need to be careful besides putting these things in your body. Should we take supplements at all? If so, why, what and how much? Probably yes – to avoid insufficiencies. New RDA's are really pretty good. You need that much, and probably not more. One exception to new RDAs, you need to be taking 1000IU of vitamin D – you need a pill. Really need that much to reduce fractures. On CR, you need some supplements: • Diet naturally deficient in some things: calcium, iron, B6, B12 • CR people need more of some nutrients: Calcium, Protein, Iron, Copper • Absorption may be an issue as well – our high fiber diet may impair absorption, particularly minerals. CR diet should have new RDA in them. Beyond that, you should take ½ to ¾ extra of a multi-vitamin. It is conservative. Strontium and vitamin K2 very helpful for bones. Strontium seems to be the only thing besides very expensive (and injection delivered) Forteo that builds bone. Vitamin K2 decreases fracture risk without increasing BMD – seems to improve bone quality. Vitamin K2 isn't effectively created in one's gut, contrary to popular belief. Bacteria don't make the right form, and they don't make it in a place in the gut where it can be absorbed. There are supplements that target specific diseases in people with high risk factors, and are worthwhile. Nutrient and vitamin lab tests aren't useful, because there is no linkage between the blood levels of vitamins, for example, and health outcomes. Important points: • Don't kill yourself via oversupplementation • Don't kill yourself by being deficient in important nutrients • *Maybe* you can do better than simply avoiding deficiency by supplementing with certain stuff – but very suspect Curcumin broken down during digestion in humans and are worthless in humans, despite fact that they help cancer in rodents. Supplement paradox: Diet rich in fruits and veggies are good, but the supplements based on the nutrients we think important in those fruits and veggies don't work. What this means is we need to make supplement regime look more like " healthy diet " . So what does epidemiology studies in humans suggest are good for us? How do good diets and supplements differ? • Alpha-tocopherol in diet is never more than 1/3 of tocopherols in diet – whereas most supplements are all alpha-tocopherol. That is why Vitamin E studies have likely failed. • Beta-carotene failure – Trials used synthetic BC, which was different from dietary BC. • Selenium – again, need to supplement w/ the right form • Don't need vitamin C supplement on top of a good diet A good diet contains more important stuff than is in supplements Stuff without support • Ginger, cucurmin, licorice Stuff w/ good support • Lots of support for alum veggies, citrus fruit, cruciferous veggies, carrots, tomatoes • Chlorophyll may be worth taking What about supplements that might slow down aging? Two mechanistic bases for slowing down aging by supplements: • Mitochondrial ROS production Bottom line: • First, get new RDA's • CR may need more of a few things • But don't mega supplement some things and not others. – be proportional • If food intake data supports a component, use that *exact* molecule, in doses similar to diet. • Or alternatively, get it from diet! Luigi had very good car analogy – A car with 5 (or 10 or 100) wheels or two steering wheels isn't necessarily better! , through the company he works for – AOR –, is going to come up with a single multi-vitamin formula he thinks is the right way to get baseline nutrition in a way that is similar to the way it is in foods. Long-chain omega-3's are an example where supplementing may reverse positive CR effect. He things if you're consuming high fat fish or fish oil, you're reversing a potentially important aspect of CR (known result of decreased long chain w3's in longer lived species). Short chain omega-3's (ALA) works as well or better for avoiding heart disease. Rae – Supplements and CR – Continued Tier system: • Get a couple multiples of the new RDA via supplement and food • Disease – unless you're genetically inclined to particular disease, don't supplement • If you do supplement for avoiding susceptibility to disease, make it look as much like real food as possible. Avoiding disease risk isn't going to gain you a lot of time. If we wipe out heart attacks and cancer, and all the other major killers, you'll only get 15 years or so. CR will almost certainly yield less. Two possibilities: • Use supplements to avoid free radical damage in mitochondria DHA (long chain omega-3) may be bad idea for mitochondrial free radical reasons. How to actively reduce mito free radical damage? CR rodents produce fewer free radicals. Complex 1 in mitochondria not accepting as many electrons in CR rodents. De Grey says electrons are spit out through cell surface. Hagen and Ames have reported lower MT free radical production when rats supplemented by R+LA. thinks R+LA may have some promise in 600 – 1200 mg. Don't *seem* likes doses that will kill you. It doesn't last long in our blood – takes it 6 times a day. Very expensive. Won't be as effective as CR. Metaformin – Given to rodents, appears to extend median and maximum lifespan to the same extent as 30% CR. It inhibits complex 1 in vivo and in vitro in rodents. Metaformin can induce a life threatening lactic acid buildup, lactic acidosis. R+LA may do the same thing, in high doses. Doesn't recommend taking Metaformin at this time. Too new results, and potential grave side effect. ALCAR – Not so afraid that it will increase mitochondrial free radical production. Doesn't look like this happens in experimental studies. Not a conservative supplement, but probably won't extend life. Glycation is another reasonable possible cause of aging But the glycation reversal supplements work early in the glycation process, and so are pretty worthless. What we need to deal with is AGE formation - *Advanced* Glycations Endpoints. If you have good blood sugar, don't bother taking ginseng or chromium picolinate. They work at the wrong spot on glycation – too early so don't help with AGEs. Beniformin – May also be good at reducing AGEs. He's pessimistic on ALT-711. Doesn't do what you want, and has side effects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Just one point, Alan, How does michael determine "it doesn't do what you want"? ALT-711 is not in the med books yet. Is it part of some protocol? from mdconsult: Cross-link breaker ALT-711 Breaks AGE collagen cross-links ↓ Diabetic rat tail collagen cross-links, ↓ renal tissue AGEs, restores vascular compliance of large vessels Phase II cardiovascular trial in progress I would guess this does not qualify as a "supplement", right? Might become a prescription drug? BTW, licorice has negative support for hypertensives. Regards ----- Original Message ----- From: old542000 Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 3:22 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Supplements usage Stuff without support• Ginger, cucurmin, licoriceHe's pessimistic on ALT-711. Doesn't do what you want, and has side effects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 ALT-711 info: http://www.alteonpharma.com/overview.htm http://morelife.org/personal/health/his-regimen.html >From: " jwwright " <jwwright@...> Reply-To: > < > >Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Supplements usage Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2004 >18:44:06 -0500 > >Just one point, Alan, How does michael determine " it doesn't do what you >want " ? ALT-711 is not in the med books yet. Is it part of some protocol? > > from mdconsult: Cross-link breaker ALT-711 Breaks AGE collagen >cross-links ? Diabetic rat tail collagen cross-links, ? renal tissue AGEs, >restores vascular compliance of large vessels Phase II cardiovascular trial >in progress > > >I would guess this does not qualify as a " supplement " , right? Might become >a prescription drug? > >BTW, licorice has negative support for hypertensives. > >Regards ----- Original Message ----- From: old542000 To: > Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 3:22 PM >Subject: [ ] Re: Supplements usage > > > > Stuff without support . Ginger, cucurmin, licorice > > > He's pessimistic on ALT-711. Doesn't do what you want, and has side >effects. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 Thanks, , Looks like ALT-711 will be a drug. Maybe a good one. Definitely not a supplement, right? Maybe MR means (just guessing) he doesn't like it as a life extension supplement? Seems if we do CR perfectly, we wouldn't need prescription drugs at least not as prevention of cardiovascular disease. That because some others don't get a lot of athero or arterio. TOL, (thinking out loud), maybe those countries/groups that don't get them die earlier of contagious diseases. ----- Original Message ----- From: Dowling Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 12:38 PM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Supplements usage ALT-711 info:http://www.alteonpharma.com/overview.htmhttp://morelife.org/personal/health/his-regimen.htmlIs this overkill or what? Just kidding, Tom(). I think out of my league with that lsi of stuff. Regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 My guess on MR's take is that it may help with some diseases, but those are likely well addressed by CR, and ALT-711 won't result in lifespan extension. >From: " jwwright " <jwwright@...> >Reply- >< > >Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Supplements usage >Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 14:56:19 -0500 > >Thanks, , >Looks like ALT-711 will be a drug. Maybe a good one. Definitely not a >supplement, right? >Maybe MR means (just guessing) he doesn't like it as a life extension >supplement? >Seems if we do CR perfectly, we wouldn't need prescription drugs at least >not as prevention of cardiovascular disease. That because some others don't >get a lot of athero or arterio. TOL, (thinking out loud), maybe those >countries/groups that don't get them die earlier of contagious diseases. > >----- Original Message ----- > From: Dowling > > Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 12:38 PM > Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Supplements usage > > > ALT-711 info: > > http://www.alteonpharma.com/overview.htm > > > http://morelife.org/personal/health/his-regimen.html > > Is this overkill or what? Just kidding, Tom(). > I think out of my league with that lsi of stuff. > > Regards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2004 Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 Carnosine is both a cross-linking breaker and inhibitor and it is sold as a dietary supplement. It's not cheap, but probably cheaper than ALT-711 will cost. Destroying AGE's seem to me to be a quality of life issue, not maximum lifexpan extension. CR slows down the formation, but not the prevention of AGE's. When/if something actually stops telemorese from decreasing in size, I'll then believe in the " holy grail " . In the meantime, the Biblical " holy grail " did contain unfiltered, fruity red wine. ;-) Logan --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> > Thanks, , > Looks like ALT-711 will be a drug. Maybe a good one. Definitely not a supplement, right? > Maybe MR means (just guessing) he doesn't like it as a life extension supplement? > Seems if we do CR perfectly, we wouldn't need prescription drugs at least not as prevention of cardiovascular disease. That because some others don't get a lot of athero or arterio. TOL, (thinking out loud), maybe those countries/groups that don't get them die earlier of contagious diseases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2004 Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 Per: http://www.alteonpharma.com/overview.htm "Alagebrium (formerly ALT-711) is Alteon's lead clinical candidate for reversing the progressive stiffening of the cardiovascular system that ultimately results in systolic hypertension, diabetic cardiomyopathies, congestive heart failure and other disorders. " I don't call that a supplement, but a therapy. If it works it will likely square the curve as does a coronary bypass. Maybe carnosine does the same - maybe not, but it won't have the "status" of a drug, once ALT-711 is approved for it's purpose. For one thing I won't be able to buy it without a prescription. My own view is that I'm very careful about things like carnosine's possible effects on blood pressure. Got a human test for carnosine on blood pressure? L-carnosine is of course endogenously produced. A credible source uses qty 3, 500 mg / per day - about 45$ / month for those interested. In the literature, it seems we have two definitions for "aging": 1) the "natural" accumulation of something that makes us die early. 2) the shortening of the telomeres. Nothing has been found to change telomeres, yet, right? Neither does CR. Perhaps CR works as well as carnosine to work against leptins? Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: loganruns73 Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 2:01 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Supplements usage Carnosine is both a cross-linking breaker and inhibitor and it is sold as a dietary supplement. It's not cheap, but probably cheaper than ALT-711 will cost.Destroying AGE's seem to me to be a quality of life issue, not maximum lifexpan extension. CR slows down the formation, but not the prevention of AGE's.When/if something actually stops telemorese from decreasing in size, I'll then believe in the "holy grail". In the meantime, the Biblical "holy grail" did contain unfiltered, fruity red wine. ;-)Logan--- In , "jwwright" <jwwright@e...> > Thanks, ,> Looks like ALT-711 will be a drug. Maybe a good one. Definitely not a supplement, right?> Maybe MR means (just guessing) he doesn't like it as a life extension supplement?> Seems if we do CR perfectly, we wouldn't need prescription drugs at least not as prevention of cardiovascular disease. That because some others don't get a lot of athero or arterio. TOL, (thinking out loud), maybe those countries/groups that don't get them die earlier of contagious diseases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2004 Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 Hi JW: Yes there is. Telomerase restores telomeres to full length. People have been working for some years already to find a way to administer it so that it can get to all the cells. (And test it for efficacy and safety, etc.). I posted about this here many months ago. They already have human 'immortal cells' that have their DNA modified (the telomerase gene added) so that they produce telomerase, and each time a cell divides the telomeres are automatically restored to full length. Skin preparation companies are buying these cells to experiment to find ways to reverse skin wrinkling. But there is nothing we as consumers can do today to take advantage of telomerase. And as far as I know, CRON has no effect. Most people regard CRON as slowing the rate of aging. Telomerase, if 'perfected', will totally reverse it, at least in respect of the 'limited cell division' problem - Hayflick Limit. On 'Scientific American Frontiers' a couple of years ago they showed, under a microscope, an 85 year old human cell being restored to 25 years of age by application of telomerase. Pretty convincing evidence from what one could see. Geron Corporation is the company that is leading this research. You will find more information on their website. Rodney. --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > 2) the shortening of the telomeres. > > Nothing has been found to change telomeres, yet, right? Neither does CR. Perhaps CR works as well as carnosine to work against leptins? > > Regards. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: loganruns73 > > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 2:01 AM > Subject: [ ] Re: Supplements usage > > > Carnosine is both a cross-linking breaker and inhibitor and it is > sold as a dietary supplement. It's not cheap, but probably cheaper > than ALT-711 will cost. > > Destroying AGE's seem to me to be a quality of life issue, not > maximum lifexpan extension. CR slows down the formation, but not the > prevention of AGE's. > > When/if something actually stops telemorese from decreasing in size, > I'll then believe in the " holy grail " . In the meantime, the > Biblical " holy grail " did contain unfiltered, fruity red wine. ;-) > > Logan > > --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> > > Thanks, , > > Looks like ALT-711 will be a drug. Maybe a good one. Definitely not > a supplement, right? > > Maybe MR means (just guessing) he doesn't like it as a life > extension supplement? > > Seems if we do CR perfectly, we wouldn't need prescription drugs at > least not as prevention of cardiovascular disease. That because some > others don't get a lot of athero or arterio. TOL, (thinking out > loud), maybe those countries/groups that don't get them die earlier > of contagious diseases. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2004 Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 Hi folks: Perhaps I should add to this that no doubt telomeres are only one of a number of 'problems' for which solutions will have to be found before aging can truly be said to be cured. Given the incredible current rate of accumulation of knowledge (and the apparent acceleration in that rate) in the biological sciences it seems likely to me that aging will be cured within 50 to 100 years. I believe Walford may have been alluding to this when he once noted that CR was the way to postpone old age long enough to be in a position to take the next generation of life-extending treatments to extend life further still - so as to be able eventually to take the treatment for the elimination of aging altogether. (Sorry, I can't provide the reference for that). Rodney. > > > 2) the shortening of the telomeres. > > > > Nothing has been found to change telomeres, yet, right? Neither > does CR. Perhaps CR works as well as carnosine to work against > leptins? > > > > Regards. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: loganruns73 > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 2:01 AM > > Subject: [ ] Re: Supplements usage > > > > > > Carnosine is both a cross-linking breaker and inhibitor and it is > > sold as a dietary supplement. It's not cheap, but probably > cheaper > > than ALT-711 will cost. > > > > Destroying AGE's seem to me to be a quality of life issue, not > > maximum lifexpan extension. CR slows down the formation, but not > the > > prevention of AGE's. > > > > When/if something actually stops telemorese from decreasing in > size, > > I'll then believe in the " holy grail " . In the meantime, the > > Biblical " holy grail " did contain unfiltered, fruity red wine. ;-) > > > > Logan > > > > --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> > > > Thanks, , > > > Looks like ALT-711 will be a drug. Maybe a good one. Definitely > not > > a supplement, right? > > > Maybe MR means (just guessing) he doesn't like it as a life > > extension supplement? > > > Seems if we do CR perfectly, we wouldn't need prescription > drugs at > > least not as prevention of cardiovascular disease. That because > some > > others don't get a lot of athero or arterio. TOL, (thinking out > > loud), maybe those countries/groups that don't get them die > earlier > > of contagious diseases. > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2004 Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 So I need to add another category of "supplements"? Maybe future supplements? The real test for telomerase when and if it becomes available: can we use it without increasing cancer? What I read sounds like we may have a cure for PCa before the introduction of telomerase as a supp. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rodney Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 11:38 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Supplements usage Hi JW:Yes there is. Telomerase restores telomeres to full length. People have been working for some years already to find a way to administer it so that it can get to all the cells. (And test it for efficacy and safety, etc.). I posted about this here many months ago. They already have human 'immortal cells' that have their DNA modified (the telomerase gene added) so that they produce telomerase, and each time a cell divides the telomeres are automatically restored to full length.Skin preparation companies are buying these cells to experiment to find ways to reverse skin wrinkling. But there is nothing we as consumers can do today to take advantage of telomerase. And as far as I know, CRON has no effect. Most people regard CRON as slowing the rate of aging. Telomerase, if 'perfected', will totally reverse it, at least in respect of the 'limited cell division' problem - Hayflick Limit. On 'Scientific American Frontiers' a couple of years ago they showed, under a microscope, an 85 year old human cell being restored to 25 years of age by application of telomerase. Pretty convincing evidence from what one could see.Geron Corporation is the company that is leading this research. You will find more information on their website.Rodney.> 2) the shortening of the telomeres. > > Nothing has been found to change telomeres, yet, right? Neither does CR. Perhaps CR works as well as carnosine to work against leptins? > > Regards.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2004 Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 Aubrey De Grey is estimating less than 50 years: http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/ " Timeframe for progress in life extension All biogerontologists are asked one question more than any other by non-biologists: By when do you think we'll start to see real life extension treatments? Most of my colleagues absolutely refuse to answer this question, because they feel that no answer can be scientifically defended and hence that to provide an answer is to misuse their exalted status as scientists. I agree with that stance in all areas of science that are not medically relevant, but not in medical areas: I feel that those with the best information have a duty to state their best-guess timeframe, because that information determines people's life choices, whether or not the public's assessment of the reliability of what experts tell them is accurate. Thus, though I know I can't defend my chosen numbers (except the first one) robustly, I don't regard that as justifying silence. Milestone 1. Control of mouse aging sufficient to kick-start a genuine " War on Aging " With adequate funding: ten years from now; almost certainly not as soon as seven years, but very likely to be less than 20 years. The degree of control that I consider sufficient is the ability to take a cohort of mice of a strain whose normal life expectancy is three years, do nothing to them until they are two years old, and get them to live an average of three more years, i.e. tripling their remaining life expectancy. Detailed justification for this prediction can be found in my publications, which are here. The main reason this milestone matters so much is that it will be the trigger for enormous social upheaval. Changes of life choices will not await the arrival of human life extension; they will occur as soon as that eventuality becomes widely anticipated. Milestone 2. Control of human aging proportional to that described for mice in milestone 1 Starting from the time that the mouse target is achieved: 15 years; almost certainly not as soon as five years, and could be as much as 100 years. The best I can do by way of justifying this is to consider the scenario in which we reach the mouse milestone without having made any progress whatsoever on the techniques that would be needed to translate it to humans. The main requirement at that stage will be extremely safe and effective gene therapy, both of the insertional variety (putting new genes into chromosomes) and the replacement ( " gene targeting " ) variety (changing an existing sequence). Several approaches to these problems are already the focus of considerable ongoing research, so I feel that a 15-year timeframe is a reasonable one, at least once funding is increased by the factor that can be expected when a " war on aging " has been declared. However, we could of course be as wrong about aging as Nixon was in 1971 about cancer, which is why my upper confidence limit is as large as 100 years. Milestone 3. Life expectancy an order of magnitude or more greater than at present Of my three milestones listed here, this is the one that stuns most people -- and, as far as I can see, for the least justified reasons. My guess is that the average age of death of those born in wealthy nations at or after the achievement of milestone 2 will exceed 5000 years. My logic here is pretty simple: 1) When we reach milestone 2, those with access to the relevant therapies will have an absolutely non-increasing risk of death per unit time -- they will not age. This is because we will be identifying, characterising and solving aspects of aging that appear at progressively later ages, faster than they progress to a life-threatening state. We have no idea at present what we will need to do to keep 200-year-olds hale and hearty, but that's OK, because we won't need that information for at least another 100 years. If we just pay attention to things that begin to appear in 180-year-olds as soon as we have any, as well as in 80-year-old chimpanzees as soon as we have them, and given the amount of effort we'll be putting in, our chances of perpetually keeping one step ahead of the problem are very good. 2) At present, the risk of death per unit time that Westerners experience in their early teens is such that if it were maintained indefinitely we would live to around 1000 years on average. (This calculation has been done many times with different data and some people get 700, some 1200; 1000 is a fair consensus.) 3) My expectation is that our risk-aversion will rise sharply if we perceive our lifespan as indefinite, so that this 1000-year life expectancy will be extended by a modest factor; a factor of five is my conservative guess. This of course relies on our risk-aversion being ubiquitous -- applying to the willingness to go to war, the effort to subvert new infectious diseases, etc, as well as our attitude to mere accidents -- but I see no reason why that should not be the case. " >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...> >Reply- > >Subject: [ ] Re: Supplements usage >Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:06:58 -0000 > >Hi folks: > >Perhaps I should add to this that no doubt telomeres are only one of >a number of 'problems' for which solutions will have to be found >before aging can truly be said to be cured. > >Given the incredible current rate of accumulation of knowledge (and >the apparent acceleration in that rate) in the biological sciences it >seems likely to me that aging will be cured within 50 to 100 years. > >I believe Walford may have been alluding to this when he once noted >that CR was the way to postpone old age long enough to be in a >position to take the next generation of life-extending treatments to >extend life further still - so as to be able eventually to take the >treatment for the elimination of aging altogether. (Sorry, I can't >provide the reference for that). > >Rodney. > > > > > > > 2) the shortening of the telomeres. > > > > > > Nothing has been found to change telomeres, yet, right? Neither > > does CR. Perhaps CR works as well as carnosine to work against > > leptins? > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: loganruns73 > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 2:01 AM > > > Subject: [ ] Re: Supplements usage > > > > > > > > > Carnosine is both a cross-linking breaker and inhibitor and it >is > > > sold as a dietary supplement. It's not cheap, but probably > > cheaper > > > than ALT-711 will cost. > > > > > > Destroying AGE's seem to me to be a quality of life issue, not > > > maximum lifexpan extension. CR slows down the formation, but >not > > the > > > prevention of AGE's. > > > > > > When/if something actually stops telemorese from decreasing in > > size, > > > I'll then believe in the " holy grail " . In the meantime, the > > > Biblical " holy grail " did contain unfiltered, fruity red >wine. ;-) > > > > > > Logan > > > > > > --- In , " jwwright " ><jwwright@e...> > > > > Thanks, , > > > > Looks like ALT-711 will be a drug. Maybe a good one. >Definitely > > not > > > a supplement, right? > > > > Maybe MR means (just guessing) he doesn't like it as a life > > > extension supplement? > > > > Seems if we do CR perfectly, we wouldn't need prescription > > drugs at > > > least not as prevention of cardiovascular disease. That because > > some > > > others don't get a lot of athero or arterio. TOL, (thinking out > > > loud), maybe those countries/groups that don't get them die > > earlier > > > of contagious diseases. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.