89 replies to this topic

[niner]

Wow, two whole reps. I sure blew that out of the water! I guess I should publish in the Journal of Placebo Effects.

[hav]

Not sure if anyone's tried this already or not, but the results of a repeat test with olive oil alone might be an interesting.

Howard

[markymark]

Hello all,
there is a new rat in town, me !
47 yrs, male 74 Kg, resistance training three times a week (gym) and, here it comes, a real creature of habit, i.e. cardio = running only 1 x/week, exactly the same route, on the same day of the week (90 % of the year on a monday). Running only one day per week without intervall training etc. means: only the physical state of the very training day counts in terms of end time. An now this: I just returned with 58:01 some mins ago. During the last two years I rarely made it below 1:00. Occasionally end-times like: 59:30, 59:45 etc. occured. This finishing time, again: 58:01 is by far the best I ran for the last 1.5 years prob. longer (I have to check the 2012 and 2011 calenders to look back for longer) Unfortunately I did not write down every finishing time of the last 5 years. All I can tell is that below 1:00 h was allways very good and below or near 58:00 mins, like right now only 1 h ago is exceptional. Well, if this is placebo, fine.
Source: C60oo from C60antiaging.com. Started on Friday 8th, Feb., Dosage: 3 half droppers = 2.25 mg/day. Cummulative dose: 24.75 mg. I also noticed improvments in thy gym, e.g. chinups, an other exercises with barbells.
I am on high-to-middose supplement regimen (Resveratrol, 500, beta-alanine / creatine, omega-3, otho-core 40 %, etc.), for years and years starting by the age of 23 (of course no resveratrol at the time). In addition, Iodoral made a huge differenece to me, when I started it in April 2012 (I do not want to open up the iodine debate here, but the iodoral needs to be mentioned as a key supplement for me).
Additional info: I am an MD and did before-blood-tests (liver kidney, white and red blood cell counts, thyroid....).
Well, like everybody else here, I suppose, I am very much interested in the testimonials of all C60-rats around. Therefor I took the time to contribute.
One more thing: Have the points raised in this thread: http://ask.lef.org/7...UDY&pageindex=1, including the fact, that Baati et al. had to publish an erratum regarding maximum life span of the oldest C60oo-rats, been given enough credit here?
regs,
mm

Edited by markymark, 18 February 2013 - 09:09 PM.

[Logic]

...Well, like everybody else here, I suppose, I am very much interested in the testimonials of all C60-rats around. Therefor I took the time to contribute.
One more thing: Have the points raised in this thread: http://ask.lef.org/7...UDY&pageindex=1, including the fact, that Baati et al. had to publish an erratum regarding maximum life span of the oldest C60oo-rats, been given enough credit here?
regs,
mm

http://www.longecity...post__p__522630

Welcome to the club markymark.
I look forward to your blood test results.

[niner]

One more thing: Have the points raised in this thread: http://ask.lef.org/7...UDY&pageindex=1, including the fact, that Baati et al. had to publish an erratum regarding maximum life span of the oldest C60oo-rats, been given enough credit here?

Thanks for the report, mm.

The erratum was discussed here a while back, and it doesn't seem to change the conclusions of the paper. In the LEF forum, someone cited a paper a paper by Nistiar et al. giving the average and maximal lifespan of male Wistar rats in a "controlled environment" as 45 and 52.8 months, respectively. This is significantly higher than the 2-3 year median lifespan that is frequently quoted for Wistar rats, and hasn't previously been mentioned here. The median lifespan of Baati's c60 rats was 87.5% longer than his controls, but only 16.7% longer than Nistiar's average. I presume Nistiar's "controlled environment" was pathogen-free, which can increase rodent lifespan substantially. I'm not sure what it is about being pathogen free that increases rodent lifespan, and whether or not it is mechanistically similar to c60. However, it's a different experiment, and probably doesn't represent a relevant control, but rather an alternative intervention that also increases lifespan, at least in rodents. I don't think that being raised in a pathogen free environment would be very good for humans. Does that mean that c60 would similarly not work (or not work as well) for humans? Remains to be seen, I suppose. As with CR, we'll have to make do with biomarkers for the time being.

[xEva]

... I presume Nistiar's "controlled environment" was pathogen-free, which can increase rodent lifespan substantially. I'm not sure what it is about being pathogen free that increases rodent lifespan, .... I don't think that being raised in a pathogen free environment would be very good for humans.

-?? Why, most advances in human longevity have been achieved precisely by diminishing our exposure to pathogens: clean water, sanitation and other measures of public hygiene. The success was so phenomenal that modern people living in the developed world are now taking it for granted.

Pathogen-free does not mean complete sterility. It only means that the exposure to the worst bugs is minimized. That's pretty much what has been achieved for humans in our model households.

[niner]

... I presume Nistiar's "controlled environment" was pathogen-free, which can increase rodent lifespan substantially. I'm not sure what it is about being pathogen free that increases rodent lifespan, .... I don't think that being raised in a pathogen free environment would be very good for humans.

-?? Why, most advances in human longevity have been achieved precisely by diminishing our exposure to pathogens: clean water, sanitation and other measures of public hygiene. The success was so phenomenal that modern people living in the developed world are now taking it for granted.

Pathogen-free does not mean complete sterility. It only means that the exposure to the worst bugs is minimized. That's pretty much what has been achieved for humans in our model households.

Ok, if only the dangerous bugs ("pathogens"- I guess that makes sense...) are removed, and all the other bugs are there, that should be ok for humans. However, do rats typically die of infections? I thought it was usually cancer that took them out. I suppose there could be a relationship between infection with certain pathogens and the ultimate development of cancer. Any rat people reading this who could shed some light on this?

Another question: If there were a mechanistic connection between pathogen free rat LE and c60-oo, would that imply that c60-oo is anti-pathogenic? I've noticed two occasions when I was surrounded by very sick (and contagious) people, yet I only had minor symptoms. Others have noticed this as well.

[GVA]

Another question: If there were a mechanistic connection between pathogen free rat LE and c60-oo, would that imply that c60-oo is anti-pathogenic? I've noticed two occasions when I was surrounded by very sick (and contagious) people, yet I only had minor symptoms. Others have noticed this as well.

OK! To this it would be possible to add that we know many and many cases when the application of small doses of highly hydrophilic C60HyFn effectively protected people from infection when they were in nidus of colds and flu. Also we know that C60HyFn does not possess any bactericidal properties and does not kill viruses and microbes. The mechanism of it is increase and strengthening of barrier functions of organism.

[markymark]

After two weeks of 2,25 mg/day I am all fine. The perceived positive effects I reported earlier, lasted. I am not sure about the dosage regime from now on. I will stay on daily for another week. 'Will then have another look at the poll and make a decision on that. I did not yet do another blood test.
@niner,
thx for taking the time to commend in the erratum issue
@Logic
thx for welcomming me
best,
mm

[markymark]

Hello,
its day 17 now. Monday my beloved (no to really) once-a-week-jogging day.
I just returned from my usual running course. It took me 57:53,1. To me this fast run-time is really weird, or, as a scientist I should say, very interesting.
mm

[xEva]

I think that increase in strength and endurance is due to improved lung function. Here is why. The other day I noticed that I breathed unusually slowly (while reading in bed). I timed the breathing cycle using my laptop clock and was astonished that it was 45 sec (!). I used to have those numbers years ago, when I meditated regularly and it was only during a meditation (up to a minute per cycle). But I was not meditating but only reading. At higher activity, sitting, now my breathing rate is ~4-5 breaths per min, which was not the case last year (about 8-10). I attribute this entirely to c60oo.

I suggest people who have not tried c60oo yet measure their breathing rate at rest for comparison later on.

[Logic]

I think that increase in strength and endurance is due to improved lung function. Here is why. The other day I noticed that I breathed unusually slowly (while reading in bed). I timed the breathing cycle using my laptop clock and was astonished that it was 45 sec (!). I used to have those numbers years ago, when I meditated regularly and it was only during a meditation (up to a minute per cycle). But I was not meditating but only reading. At higher activity, sitting, now my breathing rate is ~4-5 breaths per min, which was not the case last year (about 8-10). I attribute this entirely to c60oo.

I suggest people who have not tried c60oo yet measure their breathing rate at rest for comparison later on.

I noticed the same effect when I 1st started.
I never measured anything, but it was noticable.

One can only conclude that more oxygen is being turned into celular energy and that, that means less is turned into ROS?

Any scuba divers getting more underwater time per tank?

[niner]

I noticed something that seems to fit with the oxygen utilization idea. For years I've been doing a little cardio on a bike before I lift. I was doing around 109 watts at a reasonably easy pace, and I'd been stable at that level for a long time. A while after I started c60, like 4-6 weeks, I noticed that my old resistance level was starting to feel ridiculously easy. I even wondered if the bike was broken, and checked a couple others, all with the same results. For what felt like the same exertion as before, I was now doing more like 125 watts. I've stayed at that level since, although recently I started HIIT with three or four 20-25 second bursts around 225-250 watts.

[pleb]

I've noticed the same, years ago i had a serious chest infection which seemed to stop me filling my lungs always felt as if i could only get to say 95 percent full and felt a tightness under my right shoulder blade, that disappeared after a few days and has not come back and i appear to be able to fill them now with no problems or tightness,,
i also noticed muscle fatigue is a lot less,

Edited by pleb, 28 February 2013 - 10:25 AM.

[markymark]

I stopped 2.25 mg/day 3.5 days ago after 3 weeks in total. Today it took me 59:35,4. So may it be Nocebo. I gave my best every previous monday. It has been posted by others, that the positive effect on "strength" weans off 3 days post cessation of intake. Possibly the lag time till strength falls back to normal will increase proportionally to the total intake time. However all in all, I am fine and will post lab tests asap. I took my blood last friday, which was exactly after 3 weeks of 2.25 mg/day and 12 h after the last dosage of 0.75 mg and I put samples of serum and whole blood into the fridge.
mm

Edited by markymark, 04 March 2013 - 08:18 PM.

[niner]

It has been posted by others, that the positive effect on "strength" weans off 3 days post cessation of intake. Possibly the lag time till strength falls back to normal will increase proportionally to the total intake time. However all in all, I am fine and will post lab tests asap. I took my blood last friday, which was exactly after 3 weeks of 2.25 mg/day and 12 h after the last dosage of 0.75 mg and I put samples of serum and whole blood into the fridge.

My experience has been that the drop-off in effects depends on which effect you are looking at, and what total dose you have taken in a given time period. I found that the reduction in muscle fatigue dropped off with a half life of approximately 7-10 days after a 6mg dose. It was only after a couple months of using c60 that I noticed my steady-state endurance jump up by about 10 percent. I haven't checked it in a while since I started doing HIIT, but it seemed to be a very long lasting effect. I've never noticed an increase in strength, such as ability to lift a heavier weight. I didn't really make an effort to look for an increase in max weight though, since I hadn't been keeping track of those figures. I try to avoid injury, so don't like to go too high in weight. However, I can say that I didn't feel stronger, although I could do a lot more reps on certain exercises.

[mikeinnaples]

Once I begin C60, I will be testing muscle fatigue, not maximum strength, in a consistent manner across several exercises and workouts. I have been establishing a baseline to compare against over a two week period so I can include normal recovery period and post recovery period gains (if any). I think this will allow me to see if my results post C60 are out of range of what could be reasonably expected.

My load for these exercises have been with weights I can do 8x at least on the first couple of sets. For example:

Lift #1: warmup set, 8 reps, 8 reps, 6 reps, 4 reps.

I am stopping at 8 reps on the first 3 sets, no matter how much I have in the tank, and I am pushing the last set for as many reps as I can to get as close as I can to failure or reaching failure.

Lastly, I have also been running on a treadmill for 2 weeks in a very specific manner. I start out at a specific incline % and speed. Every 5 minutes, I increase my speed in set increments, and I do this for a total of 30 minutes. Just before ending the run, I am taking my heart rate (and will use the information to estimate V02 max using one of the calculators). I am then also taking my recovery heart rate at 1,2, and 3 minutes to give me an idea if the C60 allows me to recover any faster. In addition, I have been taking my resting pulse rate first thing in the morning and averaging it, to see if that is influenced at all by C60.

I like the idea of checking lung function especially during exercise, but I think I just have too much going on right now to check that myself. Maybe I can find a volunteer from the staff at my gym... hmm.

[markymark]

Addendum:
My blood work came back all fine after 3 weeks ending up at a cumualtive dosage of 47.25 mg. Red - and white blood cell count including leucocyte differentiation, liver, kidney, fasting glucose, HbA1c, cholesterol, electrolytes, testosterone, estradiol, TSH, fT3 and fT4.

@mikeinnaples,
your experimental setting you outlined above sounds very good. I wish you lots of interesting experiences and let us know what you find out during the test.

mm

Edited by markymark, 05 March 2013 - 08:17 PM.

[d4shing]

Addendum:
My blood work came back all fine after 3 weeks ending up at a cumualtive dosage of 47.25 mg. Red - and white blood cell count including leucocyte differentiation, liver, kidney, fasting glucose, HbA1c, cholesterol, electrolytes, testosterone, estradiol, TSH, fT3 and fT4.

@mikeinnaples,
your experimental setting you outlined above sounds very good. I wish you lots of interesting experiences and let us know what you find out during the test.

mm

Any change in these biomarkers? Even if they're all still in range, it'd be noteworthy in a n=1 sort of way.

[markymark]

@d4shing,

well a smart and legitimate question. With respect to liver, kidney, blood cells, electrolytes, Total Chol and glucose, absolutely no change. Some other tests came out even better than the before values (it's not testosterone, which remained the same too). The other "improvements"are to be considered as not significant for a n=1 sort-of-way-results-by-chance and I keep this private, for not triggering useless posting-traffic ;-).
mm

Edited by markymark, 06 March 2013 - 07:24 PM.

[stephen_b]

Not getting any negatives in before and after blood testing is a good thing. Do we have any reason to expect any improved parameters in this type of blood testing in the first place, and if so which ones?

I'm thinking about HbA1c, but then again some have made the case that elevated HbA1c in paleo dieters is due to a longer red blood cell lifetime and so is not a bad thing.

If there are markers for mitochondrial damage or insufficiency, maybe that's where we should be focusing.

[niner]

Not getting any negatives in before and after blood testing is a good thing. Do we have any reason to expect any improved parameters in this type of blood testing in the first place, and if so which ones?

I'm thinking about HbA1c, but then again some have made the case that elevated HbA1c in paleo dieters is due to a longer red blood cell lifetime and so is not a bad thing.

If there are markers for mitochondrial damage or insufficiency, maybe that's where we should be focusing.

I would want to look at markers of redox status, like ratio of oxidized to reduced glutathione, serum lipid hydroperoxides, plasma malondialdehyde, 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine, nitrite/nitrate, or urine F2-isoprostanes, 8-OH-dG and acrolein-lysine. I don't think any of these are typical clinical analytes of the sort that your doctor could check off of a standard list.

As far as the sorts of tests that are normally run, you might see some difference in markers of chronic inflammation. Maybe sed rate? CRP?

[markymark]

Yes, I agree. CRP, sed rate and also diabetes type two markers (HbA1c, fasting glucose, fasting Insulin, adiponectin) are of interest. Of course, also the more sophisticated oxidative stress markers, which have been menioned by others here: TBARS, Oxy-LDL, total antixodant capacity, isoprostanes, DNA-damage markers such as 8-OH-dgG.

But I'd be also curious about changes (or hopefully not towards atrition) in teleomere length in white blood cells and in other cells and most importantly telomerase activity itself.
Then my (and I guess I am not alone) lab.-test-wishlist goes on: how about mRNA expression profiles in humans under C60 (liver and muscle biopsies)? How about lactate production during all out 100 % spiroergometry, 80 % or 50 % of maximum workouts.

Who knows, maybe clandestinely all this is already being studied? ;-). I wish I'd have the funding and an institute where I could write study protocolls etc... In this respect. What might the verdict of a typical university ethics commission be like, if a protocoll is being submitted on say: Increase in VO2max in healthy voluteers palcebo vs. C60? Will they let ist pass? Well, I am no longer at the university.

Last not least: Recently in the anti-aging field, we are observing a change from the the more-the-better thinking in terms of antioxidants (ORAC-inflation in the supplement industry) towards "hormetic thinking, hormetic supplements (resveratrol, curcumin EGCG)" etc.
I really wonder how such a super antioxidant such as our compound in question fits within the hormetic theory. Well, OK its not only an antixidant, and I think the antixidant theory can be reconciled with the hormetic theory, simply by taking into accout: type timing and dosage of an given antioxidant and compartimentalisation of cells. And of course the anti oxidant properties of our compound is most likely not the only beneficial effect it might have.
best luck to all
mm

[mikeinnaples]

I am curious how long after dosage people began noticing strength change, be it placebo or not.

[niner]

I am curious how long after dosage people began noticing strength change, be it placebo or not.

I noticed the muscle fatigue effect pretty quickly. It was the next workout, which was either 1 or 2 days later. At that time, I didn't feel any stronger at all; if anything, I felt a little less lively, although it didn't affect my workout. I didn't see the increase in endurance until about 2 months into it.

[mikeinnaples]

Interesting. I may possibly notice something, if I notice anything at all, during my Monday workout.

[markymark]

Hello Monday again, running Day. I ended up with 58:11 (h:min). So I did not push the record any more and I maybe came to limit of improvement through c60 without changing my training habits. All in all I still feel well. Although, my sinuses are hurting a bit more than usual (chronic sinusitis for more than 20 years). I will draw my blood again in approx. 10 days.
mm

[markymark]

My lab tests came back fine after the second period of taking 3 mg/day in two divided doses of 1.5 mg (morning and late afternoon) for 3 weeks. I will make a break for another week and probably will continue with 0,75/day or 1.5 mg/every other day from there (or what is the latest regimen most rats agree on?) .
Lab tests were: Red - and White blood cells, GOT, GPT, Gamma-GT, Bilirubin, Kreatine, Electrolytes and some endocrinology.
Just a guess: Those who reported beneficial effects might look at lab tests such as TSH, DHEAS and Testosterone, and it would be fabulous, if before and after values are at hand.

I.e., let's say some rat (age over 45) used to have a TSH (even during supplementation with T4 and T3 and confirmed by many lab tests being done in previous yeras) in the region between 2.0 and 4.0 µU/l, which is normal according to the mainstream view, but not perfectly within the thyroid's "feelgood-range", finds his TSH now around 0.9 µU/l (two times tested). Maybe he has this "optimal" TSH for the first time in years and decades. At the same time DHEAS and Testosterone (which were not too bad before) did also rise significantly. However, this was during Creatine and Icariin, but the latter were already taken by the rat before and still TSH remained higher, i.e. between 2.0-4.0. Another confounder might be Iodoroal (12.5 mg/day). But same thing, i.e. TSH during the year taking Iodoral was higher.

Again, it is just a guess: Our test compound might influence human endocrinology (thyroid, adrenals, testes) in a positive way in those who "suffer" slight decline in the respective gland's capacity. That would also explain that positive effects are(?)/were(?) more preceivable in the age group 40 plus, as compared to the much younger rats.

If one day experiments in human volunteers in the age groups 40 plus, will be perfomed, IMHO, they should look (and I am confident they will) at those endocrinologic parameters.
mm

Edited by markymark, 30 March 2013 - 09:52 AM.

[Logic]

My lab tests came back fine after the second period of taking 3 mg/day in two divided doses of 1.5 mg (morning and late afternoon) for 3 weeks. I will make a break for another week and probably will continue with 0,75/day or 1.5 mg/every other day from there (or what is the latest regimen most rats agree on?) .
Lab tests were: Red - and White blood cells, GOT, GPT, Gamma-GT, Bilirubin, Kreatine, Electrolytes and some endocrinology.
Just a guess: Those who reported beneficial effects might look at lab tests such as TSH, DHEAS and Testosterone, and it would be fabulous, if before and after values are at hand.

I.e., let's say some rat (age over 45) used to have a TSH (even during supplementation with T4 and T3 and confirmed by many lab tests being done in previous yeras) in the region between 2.0 and 4.0 µU/l, which is normal according to the mainstream view, but not perfectly within the thyroid's "feelgood-range", finds his TSH now around 0.9 µU/l (two times tested). Maybe he has this "optimal" TSH for the first time in years and decades. At the same time DHEAS and Testosterone (which were not too bad before) did also rise significantly. However, this was during Creatine and Icariin, but the latter were already taken by the rat before and still TSH remained higher, i.e. between 2.0-4.0. Another confounder might be Iodoroal (12.5 mg/day). But same thing, i.e. TSH during the year taking Iodoral was higher.

Again, it is just a guess: Our test compound might influence human endocrinology (thyroid, adrenals, testes) in a positive way in those who "suffer" slight decline in the respective gland's capacity. That would also explain that positive effects are(?)/were(?) more preceivable in the age group 40 plus, as compared to the much younger rats.

If one day experiments in human volunteers in the age groups 40 plus, will be perfomed, IMHO, they should look (and I am confident they will) at those endocrinologic parameters.
mm

I theorised/posted way back that C60oo may improve glandular function. So its nice to see this... 'confirmed'?

Edited by Logic, 30 March 2013 - 11:28 AM.

[taho]

Have you by any cance also checked your HbA1c levels?