Re: Re: multivitamin question

[Guest guest]

I would say, yes: "complex dietary cocktails can powerfully ameliorate biomarkers of aging and modulate mechanisms considered ultimate goals for aging interventions."

The below paper is free-text including pdf-availed.

NEUROSCIENCE:Vadim Aksenov, Jiangang Long, Sonali Lokuge, Jane A , Jiankang Liu, and C RolloDietary amelioration of locomotor, neurotransmitter and mitochondrial agingExp Biol Med, January 2010; 235: 66 - 76. http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/reprint/235/1/66?maxtoshow= & hits=10 & RESULTFORMAT=1 & author1=rollo & andorexacttitle=and & andorexacttitleabs=and & andorexactfulltext=and & searchid=1 & FIRSTINDEX=0 & sortspec=relevance & resourcetype=HWCIThttp://tinyurl.com/yhng569

AbstractAging degrades motivation, cognition, sensory modalities and physical capacities, essentially dimming zestful living. Bradykinesis (declining physical movement) is a highly reliable biomarker of aging and mortality risk.Mice fed a complex dietary supplement (DSP) designed to ameliorate five mechanisms associated with aging showed no loss of total daily locomotion compared with >50% decrement in old untreated mice. This was associated with boosted striatal neuropeptide Y, reversal of age-related declines in mitochondrial complex III activity in brain and amelioration of oxidative stress (brain protein carbonyls). Supplemented mice expressed 50% fewer mitochondrial protein carbonyls per unit of complex III activity. Reduction of free radical production by mitochondria may explain the exceptional longevity of birds and dietary restricted animals and no DSP is known to impact

this mechanism. Functional benefits greatly exceeded the modest longevity increases documented for supplemented normal mice.Regardless, for aging humans maintaining zestful health and performance into later years may provide greater social and economic benefits than simply prolonging lifespan. Although identifying the role of specific ingredients and interactions remains outstanding, results provide proof of principle that complex dietary cocktails can powerfully ameliorate biomarkers of aging and modulate mechanisms considered ultimate goals for aging interventions.Keywords: aging, locomotion, mitochondria, protein carbonyls, neuropeptide Y, free radicals, energy regulation, growth hormone, mice, dietary supplement...Table 1 Ingredients included in the complex dietary supplement.------------------------------------------------Ingredient Mouse dose (mg/day/100

mice)------------------------------------------------Vitamin B1 30.49Ginko biloba 18.29Vitamin B3 (niacin) 30.49Ginseng 631.1Vitamin B6 60.98Green tea extract 487.8Vitamin B12 0.18L-Glutathione 30.49Vitamin C 350.61Magnesium 45.73Vitamin D 0.02Manganese 19.05Acetyl L-carnitine 146.45Melatonin 0.73Alpha-lipoic acid 182.93N-acetyl cysteine 304.88Acetylsalicylic acid 132.11Potassium 18.11Beta carotene 21.95Rutin 304.88Bioflavonoids 792.68Selenium 0.05Chromium picolinate 0.30Vitamin E 326.83Folic acid 0.61Cod liver oil (Omega 3) 1219.51Garlic 3.81Coenzyme Q10 60.98Ginger root extract 600.37Flax seed oil 1219.51------------------------------------------------

-- Aalt Pater

The new Internet Explorer® 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Get it Now for Free!

[Guest guest]

The recent (small) study suggesting different individual energy

metabolism for macro-nutrients logically suggests that nutrient

metabolism may likewise vary between individuals.

We understand nutrient deficiency mechanisms, but again perhaps not

precise minimum individual requirements. My suspicion is minimums are

biased toward the high side to cover individual variation.

I've already pee'd away enough excess vitamins in my lifetime to

supplement a small African village. I think I'll wait for some

compelling science.

If you want to be 'locomotively robust' when your old, you need to be

'locomotively robust' now.. (I ran 5 miles today. Got some of that real

Vit D too.)

Of course I could be wrong....

JR

On 3/10/2010 3:25 PM, perspect1111 wrote:

Gosh. I love this place. It is amazing how much stuff that is

apparently of enormous benefit to health gets posted here. The paper

referenced in Al's post below just being one of the most recent.

The study supplemented mice with 30 'nutritional' substances and

apparently found enormous benefits, but without knowing at this early

stage which are responsible for the benefits.

So I am curious to hear what others here might be thinking of doing

about supplementing some of the supplements in this study which they

are not already consuming.

It would be a huge advantage to us if, in addition to living a lot

longer because of CR, we could 'almost guarantee' being 'locomotively

robust' until very near the end. Perhaps, if this also works out in

humans, I might be able to actually achieve my sort-of ambition to play

a full round of golf on my 100th birthday, without a cart, and carrying

a few of my favorite clubs.

Ha!

But to repeat my question: Any thoughts about which of these

supplements one might perhaps consider taking, and the quantity

involved?

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Apropos of this discussion the following article was in today: Washington Post:

Vitamin and mineral supplements haven't proved effective in preventing disease

Washington Post

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Americans want to believe in vitamin and mineral pills. We spent an estimated $10 billion on them in 2008, according to the Nutrition Business Journal.

But recent studies undertaken to assess their benefits have delivered a flurry of disappointing results. The supplements failed to prevent Alzheimer's disease, cancer, heart attacks, strokes, Type 2 diabetes and premature death.

While some people may need supplements at certain stages of their lives, nutritional deficiencies are uncommon in the United States. Major health organizations for cancer, diabetes and heart disease all advise against supplements in favor of a healthful diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains and legumes. Unlike pills, those foods contain fiber plus thousands of health-protective substances that seem to work together more powerfully than any single ingredient can work alone.

Another concern is that some vitamin pills can be toxic if taken in high doses for a long time. Studies show that beta carotene pills, for example, can increase the risk of lung cancer in smokers, and a 2008 review suggests that the pills, plus supplemental doses of the vitamins A and E, may increase the risk of premature death. Yet despite such unfavorable results, vitamin and mineral pills are widely used to fend off diseases.

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of supplements to prevent the following conditions:

-- Cancer. Two large trials published in 2009 came up empty. In one, sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, researchers reported that Vitamin E and the mineral selenium failed to prevent prostate cancer. In fact, researchers noted possible increased risks of prostate cancer from Vitamin E and of Type 2 diabetes from selenium. The second study, the Physicians' Health Study II, found that neither Vitamin C nor E reduced the risk of colon, lung, prostate or other cancers in men.

-- Heart disease. Folic acid and other B vitamins failed to prevent heart attacks, strokes and death from cardiovascular disease in women at risk for heart disease in a 2008 trial by the Harvard Medical School. And neither Vitamin C nor E prevented those events in men in the Physicians' Health Study II. Vitamin E, however, was linked to an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke. Antioxidant supplements were previously thought to prevent fatty buildups in arteries, but research now suggests that they may worsen cholesterol levels and blunt the effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs.

-- Type 2 diabetes. In a 2009 trial, vitamin and mineral pills didn't reduce the risk of metabolic syndrome -- a cluster of symptoms including abdominal obesity and high levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol and blood sugar -- which can lead to Type 2 diabetes. Additional 2009 studies found that vitamin pills didn't prevent Type 2 diabetes and might undermine the ability of exercise to improve blood sugar levels.

-- Cognitive decline. B vitamins didn't slow Alzheimer's disease, and Vitamin E failed to prevent dementia in people with cognitive impairment, according to trials from the Alzheimer's Disease ative Study, funded by the National Institutes of Health. On the other hand, a deficiency of Vitamin B12 or thyroid hormone can cause cognitive impairment, so if you're declining more than normal for your age, you should be tested for those conditions.

-- Immune function. The evidence on whether vitamin and mineral supplements can enhance immunity is contradictory, especially for people who eat adequately. And while supplements can boost immune response in older people with nutritional deficiencies, it's still not known if that results in fewer infections.

Some evidence supports the use of supplements for these conditions:

-- Eye disease. People who have at least moderate age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a leading cause of blindness, may be able to limit further damage by taking a daily supplement that contains vitamins C, E and beta carotene.

-- Osteoporosis. In a recent comprehensive review of 167 studies, the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that calcium and Vitamin D pills reduced fractures and bone loss, although the fracture benefit was primarily only in female nursing-home residents.

Copyright 2010. Consumers Union of United States Inc.

On 3/10/10 5:13 PM, " john roberts " <robertsjohnh@...> wrote:

The recent (small) study suggesting different individual energy metabolism for macro-nutrients logically suggests that nutrient metabolism may likewise vary between individuals.

We understand nutrient deficiency mechanisms, but again perhaps not precise minimum individual requirements. My suspicion is minimums are biased toward the high side to cover individual variation.

I've already pee'd away enough excess vitamins in my lifetime to supplement a small African village. I think I'll wait for some compelling science.

If you want to be 'locomotively robust' when your old, you need to be 'locomotively robust' now.. (I ran 5 miles today. Got some of that real Vit D too.)

Of course I could be wrong....

JR

On 3/10/2010 3:25 PM, perspect1111 wrote:

Gosh. I love this place. It is amazing how much stuff that is apparently of enormous benefit to health gets posted here. The paper referenced in Al's post below just being one of the most recent.

The study supplemented mice with 30 'nutritional' substances and apparently found enormous benefits, but without knowing at this early stage which are responsible for the benefits.

So I am curious to hear what others here might be thinking of doing about supplementing some of the supplements in this study which they are not already consuming.

It would be a huge advantage to us if, in addition to living a lot longer because of CR, we could 'almost guarantee' being 'locomotively robust' until very near the end. Perhaps, if this also works out in humans, I might be able to actually achieve my sort-of ambition to play a full round of golf on my 100th birthday, without a cart, and carrying a few of my favorite clubs.

Ha!

But to repeat my question: Any thoughts about which of these supplements one might perhaps consider taking, and the quantity involved?

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:41 PM, perspect1111 wrote:

Hi JR:

Well, just to take issue with one part of your post ..... the part which said:

"If you want to be 'locomotively robust' when your old, you need to be 'locomotively robust' now.. (I ran 5 miles today ...."

As you so eloquently (!) say, you may be wrong. Of course, we know that there isn't enough information for us to be confident of the facts about this at this stage. You might be right too! The same, of course, applies also to my opinions about this. But, given that reservation, here is my opinion, which is different from yours, based on what I think we know:

Periodically you say something like "I ran five miles today." I do not know how often you run five miles, but here is some analysis of the likely (possible?) effects if someone were to run five miles every day:

Fine, but you are choosing the wrong part of my comment to pick apart. I didn't say I run 5 miles every day and you might be surprised that I agree with you more than not. Years ago I actually trained up to finish a marathon by running only once a week. Each week I increased my distance 2.5 miles until I was close enough to finish the 26.3 miles. I don't plan to run or train for any more marathons, since I find the cost/benefit, too much cost for too little benefit. Ironically it's the time it costs as much as wear and tear on the body.

Let's suppose that in order to maintain what is considered to be an appropriate body mass (BMI, or other, better, measure of body mass) a male individual, without exercise, finds he needs to consume 1800 calories daily. If that individual additionally were to run five miles daily that would mean he would have to consume, very approximately, an additional 580 calories just to 'fund' the additional physical activity and maintain the desired weight.

Now an increase of 580 calories - on top of the 'exercise-free' 1800 - represents a 32% increase in caloric intake. We all here are aware what an increase in caloric intake of this magnitude would do to the lifespans of the animals tested in CR experiments - mice, fruit flies, rats, etc.. It would reduce their average and maximum lifespans by, very roughly, 32%.

The exercising individual would certainly be much fitter than someone getting by with just the minimum amount of exercise definitely required to maintain health. But, as I like to quote, as Dr. Henry , cardiologist, said: "Fitness has absolutely nothing to do with health." Source: his book: 'The Exercise Myth'.

So, I would like to suggest to you, that by running five miles a day one would likely die much fitter, at a 32% younger age.

32% in years?? bummer. Eating significant;y more food, exposes us to more toxins so increases risk from that vector proportionately. life extension in higher mammals is suggestive but did they do any rat studies with rats that were obese for most of their adult life?

What is more, the study I referenced had found that the experimental mice had been able to maintain their levels of 'locomotive robustness', with no diminution, into old age without the need for additional exercise. So their findings do not agree with your statement that: "If you want to be 'locomotively robust' when your old, you need to be 'locomotively robust' now....". This study suggests that in order to be 'locomotively robust' in old age one needs to take the right supplements.

Of course the research I referenced will have to be confirmed by other investigators, be shown to apply also to humans, and hopefully be more specific about which supplements were responsible for the observed effects.

Lots of qualifications (!) as I know you will be quick to pick up on! But I am just trying to make sense of the incomplete knowledge we have about these things. I am not persuaded that LOTS of exercise is either necessary or desirable. Years ago I used to jog about ten miles a week. But I no longer do so because I no longer believe it to be beneficial.

"Just my take". We all have to draw our own conclusions based on our own interpretation of the incomplete evidence. But the (inverse) relationship between caloric intake and lifespan is one of the more strongly supported propositions discussed here.

Rodney.

My take and point I was trying to make is that the human body, unlike a simple machine, does not wear out linearly with use, nor does it maintain full function if sitting idle and never used. The older we get the more apparent this decline in capacity from lack of use.I am not advocating that everybody run... but I find it a compact, time efficient workout used in moderation to maintain aerobic fitness. I also play pickup basketball (once a week) against young adults and kids, some more than 40 years younger than me.If my level of activity cost me a little time off the end of my dwell here, I'll gladly pay it for the improved quality while living it. I really enjoy playing ball. I may regret that decision later if true but not today. While I don't find participating in sports at age, normal or necessary, having decent strength and balance has helped me avoid injury from falls and the like. I do advocate some amount of exercise for good QOL, while I suspect something more moderate like Yoga is probably more than adequate... I have seen several neighbors in their powered wheelchairs rolling around, and despite living across the street from the post office, pretty much every one of my immediate neighbors drives a car or truck to the post office to pick up their mail. One old friend of mine who's idea of strenuous exercise was parking at the far end of the parking lot, was a bent up, and not very vital, old man the last time I visited him after not seeing him for several years. FWIW he was always slender while not a cronie. Significant energy restriction may help mitigate against the worst insults from inactivity in combination with energy surplus, but i don't expect any diet alone to keep muscles toned and responsive when never used. Muscular atrophy from remodeling is that much more aggressive during energy restriction. As with all things, Moderation, moderation, moderation. . While we must agree to disagree about what exactly that means wrt exercise. For folks playing along at home, don't take my comments as anything more than a rationalization of my personal life choices. While 5 miles a day, every day, does make a nice straw man for Rodney to knock down. :-)Finally I will repeat what I thought was the important part of my actual comment.. " If you want to be 'locomotively robust' when you [are] old, you need to be "locomotively robust' now. I stand by that. If you don't use it you will lose it, and if you never had it, it won't magically appear just because you eat right. JR PS: Rodney I don't mean to belittle your analytical approach to this regimen. I mostly agree with you, but micro managing this is just not my chosen path.

> >

> > Gosh. I love this place. It is amazing how much stuff that is

> > apparently of enormous benefit to health gets posted here. The paper

> > referenced in Al's post below just being one of the most recent.

> >

> > The study supplemented mice with 30 'nutritional' substances and

> > apparently found enormous benefits, but without knowing at this early

> > stage which are responsible for the benefits.

> >

> > So I am curious to hear what others here might be thinking of doing

> > about supplementing some of the supplements in this study which they

> > are not already consuming.

> >

> > It would be a huge advantage to us if, in addition to living a lot

> > longer because of CR, we could 'almost guarantee' being 'locomotively

> > robust' until very near the end. Perhaps, if this also works out in

> > humans, I might be able to actually achieve my sort-of ambition to

> > play a full round of golf on my 100th birthday, without a cart, and

> > carrying a few of my favorite clubs.

> >

> > Ha!

> >

> > But to repeat my question: Any thoughts about which of these

> > supplements one might perhaps consider taking, and the quantity involved?

> >

> > Rodney.

> >

> >

> >

>