2189 replies to this topic

[GreenPower]

Did you take a baseline of your telomeres (i.e. a FlowFISH-test) before you started?

I'm curious, what is a flowFISH test and how does it work?

-thanks

I wonder how people managed before there was Wikipedia :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow-FISH

The short story is that it's a quite expensive test which measures the length of the telomeres of your chromosomes.

[tunt01]

this company now offers a telomere test, if any of you were looking for an alternative to the canadian lab which others used.

http://www.spectracell.com/

[Anthony_Loera]

Thanks Prophets,

I am really tempted to send samples to both labs now. Maybe that would be an interesting little comparison just for kicks.

Well, today I took my first cycloastragenol capsule (5mg) and these also have 1mg of chitosan (good as it provides a unique formulation)... For the record, I haven't developed any gargantuan elephant-man looking cancer tumors nor do I ever think I will, and I have been using Astragaloside IV for almost a year now, as of today I have switched over to Cycloastragenol.

For folks wondering, I am planning on taking the telomere tests around this time next month to see if any changes have happened since last time.

Cheers
A

[zorba990]

Thanks Prophets,

I am really tempted to send samples to both labs now. Maybe that would be an interesting little comparison just for kicks.

Well, today I took my first cycloastragenol capsule (5mg) and these also have 1mg of chitosan (good as it provides a unique formulation)... For the record, I haven't developed any gargantuan elephant-man looking cancer tumors nor do I ever think I will, and I have been using Astragaloside IV for almost a year now, as of today I have switched over to Cycloastragenol.

For folks wondering, I am planning on taking the telomere tests around this time next month to see if any changes have happened since last time.

Cheers
A

Why would you switch protocols before the next test?
How will you know which results were from cycling + greater dosage of Astragaloside IV versus Cycloastragenol?

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi Zorba,

I guess I am just excited we have this available now.
Originally in my older posts I did say I would change over once we had it... however it makes sense to go through 6 months of using A4 at 100mg.

My other thoughts on this would be, to wait another six months after September to see if any changes are apparent with the new capsule.

Hmmm... let me chew on this some more.

A

[mrak1979]

hey anthony, on your new astral fruit-c page but not on the regular astral fruit page, you list cacao as a telomerase inhibitor. Is that an error or fact?

[Anthony_Loera]

Hmm...

what page are you looking at? I don't see that...
After a google search, the only page that says that is a very old page, not the new page we just added.

Thanks for letting me know.

Maybe Cacao was a mistake, but overall chocolate may be included in the list, as it has a combination of polyphenols.

here is a quote from a study that mentions some polyphenols. I think Chocolate may have a couple of these:
http://cancerres.aac...nt/63/4/824.pdf

In conjunction with our previous study on the inhibition of telom-
erase by tea catechins (13), the present study additionally demon-
strates that EGCG and some selected dietary polyphenols (epicat-
echin, quercetin, myricetin, naringin, naringinin, and biochanin A)
undergo, at neutral or alkaline pHs, structural degradation that results
in remarkably increased telomerase inhibition.

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 07 August 2009 - 12:39 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

Ah, ok... I found it in the "extended info" section... my mistake.

thanks mrak1979

A

[JLL]

here is a quote from a study that mentions some polyphenols. I think Chocolate may have a couple of these:
http://cancerres.aac...nt/63/4/824.pdf

In conjunction with our previous study on the inhibition of telom-
erase by tea catechins (13), the present study additionally demon-
strates that EGCG and some selected dietary polyphenols (epicat-
echin, quercetin, myricetin, naringin, naringinin, and biochanin A)
undergo, at neutral or alkaline pHs, structural degradation that results
in remarkably increased telomerase inhibition.

Am I reading that paper right that in non-cancerous retinal epithelial cells EGCG caused telomerase shortening? This is a bad thing, right?

I'm also confused that the authors also mention green tea (not just EGCG) being harmful for wound healing, but then mention that the instability of EGCG might be the reason such effects are not seen in vivo. Does green tea inhibit wound healing in vivo or not?

[GreenPower]

Sorry,

I have taken 200mg to see what you are talking about, but I do not get the reaction you are talking about.

I'll let you know about cycloastragenol next week (yes, I got to use it myself before making it available...)

Cheers
A

It could be I'm part of the "less than one person out of 100 has the symptom" group. And I also get it when taking the same amount of pills of "standardized Astragalus exctract" (see earlier post for composition), so I'm pretty sure it's not the AIV which gives this effect.

Good to know it's been thoroughly tested before I start using it! ;-) But seriously, in what price range do you think it will finally end up?

I found the answer

[kilgoretrout]

Did you take a baseline of your telomeres (i.e. a FlowFISH-test) before you started?

I'm curious, what is a flowFISH test and how does it work?

-thanks

I wonder how people managed before there was Wikipedia :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow-FISH

The short story is that it's a quite expensive test which measures the length of the telomeres of your chromosomes.

The telomeres of WHICH chromosomes?

The chromosomes if WHICH cells?

What reason is there to assume that it is the same for every chromosome for every cell in all areas of your body? It could well be radically different in your gut, and in the heart, and in blood vessels and in the brain, could it not? If not, why not? It seems like a greatly unjustified assumption that these tests tell you anything useful about anything other than the specific cells that were removed and tested.

Telomere length seems like it might well be a cell-specific, or cell-line specific, or even possibly-chromosome specific parameter, that something else in the cell has control over for some totally unknown purpose of gene-regulation and/or cellular senescence. If might be proper functioning of system A if cells did not live very long, and one method could be that something in the cell shortens the telomeres there, whereas elsewhere, it is part of how the system functions for individual cells to survive for a very long time, and some little nucleic machine of some sort is activated to build and lengthen them.

Before jumping to any systemic conclusions about an overgeneralized value for "My Telomere Length" that can be drawn from these tests, don't such questions need answering?

And of course, even once they were answered, we really have almost NO idea what that telomere length means about your health, longevity, and future prognosis.

It just seems to me that these testing companies are enriching themselves by preying upon peoples' unwarranted assumptions and guesses and hopes, and they really cannot point to anything proving what the results of the test actually represents in terms of either telomeres throughout your body, nor what it means to your health.

I say save your money and look at how OTHER measurable, known parameters of health, other biological age markers etc., that medicine has a firm grip on what they mean, if you want to know if some supplement you are taking is helping or hurting you.

And for heaven's sake, don't pay much attention to advice that owners of companies selling a supplement give to you about what tests you ought to use to see if their $200/month bottle of 30 pills is working or not. I mean, with all due respect: duh!

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi Folks,

I wanted to comment by showing first the following information form a set of emails I received in June & July:

Brooke Greenberg and her family (three normal sisters and parents) were interviewed on ABC-TV News "2020" on Channel 7 last night at ~10:15 PM PDT;
Friday, June 26, 2009 and the video clip is on the "2020" website at "Girl Who Doesn't Grow Baffles Docs: At 16, Brooke Is Old Enough To Drive, but Still Rides in a Car
Seat." To judge for yourself, click on ...

http://abcnews.go.co.....0Baffles Docs

Well, an expert did respond that the girl in fact does seem to age as this paper http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19428454 shows briefly that some of her features such as telomere length, are comparable to her chronological age, while others are infantile. (From the GRG)

One of the reaserchers has mentioned the following as well:

Thanks for your interest in Brooke Greenberg. I would like to clarify my position on her case since it was corrupted by editing of the 20/20 staff for broadcast. Clearly, they were interested more in airing the human interest component rather than the scientific basis for my participation. Although we filmed many hours involving microarray assays, telomere/telomerase measurements and extensive evaluation of her clinical condition(s) none of those data were included. Hopefully, Discovery Channel which will air a full hour on August 2 or August 9 (I think different days in different areas) will include much more of our scientific information. In the interim, I would like to make several points. The first is that unlike the comments of Mr. Greenberg, there is no evidence that Brooke is not aging (or more correctly changing in time). She is certainly not the fountain of youth. Rather, fo! r those of you who have r! ead our recent paper in Mech Age Dev, it would appear that she is not developing as a unit organism. This suggested to me that she may have suffered mutational damage to putative gene(s) responsible for initiating and coordinating developmental change from conception to young adulthood.

If experts (including the scientists researching this poor girl's issue) are commenting that telomere length is associated with age in this rare case as well as in other studies, then it is apparent that many experts do consider telomere length one of the decent metrics for aging. Personally I am not related to any telomere testing facility, I am just reporting what results I get.

As for the cell proliferation, that may speed up telomere shortening in some organs of the body, while others may be slower... I am not ruling that out. I tend to lean toward a belief that breast issues (for example) may partially be caused by your hypothesis due to telomere shortening.

Wow, I hope no one is buying a $200 bottle, I certainly wouldn't sell it for that amount... that's is a bit too much.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 08 August 2009 - 12:31 PM.

[GreenPower]

Did you take a baseline of your telomeres (i.e. a FlowFISH-test) before you started?

I'm curious, what is a flowFISH test and how does it work?

-thanks

I wonder how people managed before there was Wikipedia :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow-FISH

The short story is that it's a quite expensive test which measures the length of the telomeres of your chromosomes.

The telomeres of WHICH chromosomes?

The chromosomes if WHICH cells?

What reason is there to assume that it is the same for every chromosome for every cell in all areas of your body? It could well be radically different in your gut, and in the heart, and in blood vessels and in the brain, could it not? If not, why not? It seems like a greatly unjustified assumption that these tests tell you anything useful about anything other than the specific cells that were removed and tested.

Telomere length seems like it might well be a cell-specific, or cell-line specific, or even possibly-chromosome specific parameter, that something else in the cell has control over for some totally unknown purpose of gene-regulation and/or cellular senescence. If might be proper functioning of system A if cells did not live very long, and one method could be that something in the cell shortens the telomeres there, whereas elsewhere, it is part of how the system functions for individual cells to survive for a very long time, and some little nucleic machine of some sort is activated to build and lengthen them.

Before jumping to any systemic conclusions about an overgeneralized value for "My Telomere Length" that can be drawn from these tests, don't such questions need answering?

And of course, even once they were answered, we really have almost NO idea what that telomere length means about your health, longevity, and future prognosis.

It just seems to me that these testing companies are enriching themselves by preying upon peoples' unwarranted assumptions and guesses and hopes, and they really cannot point to anything proving what the results of the test actually represents in terms of either telomeres throughout your body, nor what it means to your health.

I say save your money and look at how OTHER measurable, known parameters of health, other biological age markers etc., that medicine has a firm grip on what they mean, if you want to know if some supplement you are taking is helping or hurting you.

And for heaven's sake, don't pay much attention to advice that owners of companies selling a supplement give to you about what tests you ought to use to see if their $200/month bottle of 30 pills is working or not. I mean, with all due respect: duh!

Ok, let's start with the question "The chromosomes if WHICH cells?"
It's obvious not very cost effecient to measure the length of the chromosomes of all types of cells. Personally I took a baseline of markers belonging to several types of cells belonging to the immune system. These were (as stated earlier in this thread):
1 - Lymphocyte,
2 - Granulocyte,
3 - CD45RA-neg,
4 - CD45RA+/CD20-,
5 - CD57-pos,
6 - CD20-pos.
Sometimes people are said to die of "old age". However, people don't just die because their cells have a limited lifespan (the Hayflick limit). With increasing age, we get more susceptible to illnesses which younger people easily can manage. This is probably in part due to our immune system getting older and not doing it's work as well as in younger days. If you can extend the lifespan of the immune system, I think it's logical to assume you will be better prepared to handle diseases when getting old. Therefore I personally think the possible change in these markers are among the more prioritized to measure.


Question number two "The telomeres of WHICH chromosomes?"
It's the "Median Telomere Length" for the specific cell type which is measured. For example, my MTL for "Lymphocytes" were 7,5 kb with a standard deviation of ±0.6. This can be compared with the Normal MTL at my age (50th percentile), which is 6.9 kb. This is interpreted as "Normal".


> And of course, even once they were answered, we really have almost NO idea what that telomere length means about your health, longevity, and future prognosis.
We do know that a cell which reach the Hayflick limit enters what is called cellular senescence, that is - it can no longer divide. It has been shown, by Rita B. Effros at UCLA, that "exposure of T cells to chemical telomerase activators, not only retards telomere loss but also restores a more youthful functional profile to the T cells. These observations suggest possible novel telomerase-based therapeutic approaches to enhancing healthspan in the elderly population" (J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009 Feb 19. [Epub ahead of print] Kleemeier Award Lecture 2008--The Canary in the Coal Mine: Telomeres and Human Healthspan.Effros RB).


> It just seems to me that these testing companies are enriching themselves by preying upon peoples' unwarranted assumptions and guesses and hopes, and they really
> cannot point to anything proving what the results of the test actually represents in terms of either telomeres throughout your body, nor what it means to your health.
They don't. These tests had a market and valid reasons for their existence long before anyone had found and started to sell (possible) "telomerase activators". The tests are primarily intended for (stated at the homepage of the canadian lab) "patients and their relatives, when inherited deficiencies in telomere maintenance are suspected. Such diseases include dyskeratosis congenita, aplastic anemia, pulmonary fibrosis, liver cirrhosis and other dysplastic disorders, caused by mutations in telomerase genes".

I personally took the test in order to be able to validate that the "possible telemerase activators" I bought actually has any effect.

[AgeVivo]

Saying that telomerase activators are safe because they were considered safe for AIDS patients is not as transparent as admitting that a healthy person taking a telomerase activator is at risk, of cancer in particular. Even then, there is insufficient knowledge on telomerase activators to transpose effects of one telomerase activator to another telomerase activator


Effects of telomerase activators are interesting for the field of life-extension, but being scientifically and ethically slightly better than most snake oil vendors is not a source of admiration. It's a questionable activity unless *meaningfull* tests are performed:

It is normal that someone selling a new product
- tests (and reports) whether it has an effect... before it is sold
- in a double blind and peer-reviewed manner
- in animals before humans (... i'd even say "before innocent human buyers")
- in particular for long term adverse effects.
- then, when it is sold, asking for and reporting adverse effects in human buyers is important

Of course, relying on cancer-resistant mice is cheating; you recognize this point and i think that's a good start.
I think you deserve support if you are inline with those lines. For now, it isn't the case.

PS: Sorry to spam imminst with so obvious information

Edited by AgeVivo, 08 August 2009 - 02:42 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

AgeVivo,

I have a reason to believe TA-65 is likely cycloastragenol. Seems to me, folks taking this supplement have not issues and they have been doing so for quite a bit, and they need to report adverse effects to the FDA as it is a supplement. None so far have been reported that I have found. As for telomerase and your opinion on it, have we not gone down this road already?

http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=327223

Transient telomerase provides no increased cancer risk.

Cheers
A

[AgeVivo]

As for telomerase and your opinion on it, have we not gone down this road already?
http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=327223

and we never agreed that "Transient telomerase provides no increased cancer risk", in the contrary:

• I am trying to inform about the RISK that you and GreenPower seem to DENY in this thread. GreenPower's safety argument is UCLA papers where safety conclusions were essentially agreed in the context of AIDs patients
• You told me to get away of the road ("For folks like AgeVivo, I simply ask you to wait until there is more data") after i indicated that theory predicts that telomerase activation stimulates cancer. I'm not saying that it does so in practice in humans: we simply have not enough data. Under these conditions i ask you to state that the risk is unknown until there is more data. It is the one saying that there is no risk that must prove it, dude.
• The link you provide shows that you misunderstood this fightaging.org page. You copy-pasted "if you are a mouse and increase telomerase activity... this may delay aging by 50%" but when translating Serrano's Spanish text the take-home message here is: "is it simply a matter of increasing telomerase activity to make a mouse immortal? The answer is no, because telomerase makes more cancer."
• Ask Michael Rae what he thinks about your "no risk" assumption...

Now perhaps i misunderstand you or something. In this case don't hesitate to correct my understanding (please avoid hidden word differences such as "oncogene" versus "risk to stimulate existing cancers").

Concerning the questions that your post requests, let's ask them:
a) Why do you think that "TA-65 is likely cycloastragenol"? What does it imply?
b) If someone taking Astragaloside IV had cancer, would you know it?

Edited by AgeVivo, 08 August 2009 - 06:46 PM.

[VinceG]

Hi telomerase activists and interested parties. You might be interested in my latest blog post Extra-telomeric benefits of telomerase – good news for telomerase activators
It can be found at http://anti-agingfir...ase-activators/

In that post I point out several important benefits of telomerase activation that are independent of telomere length extension, providing research study references. These benefits could turn out in the long run to be as or more important than simply extending telomeres. I conclude the post saying "In the light of the above, I am not excessively concerned about whether telomere lengthening is happening in me as a result of my taking the astragaloside IV telomerase activator. The other benefits are likely to be worthwhile by themselves."
Vince</FONT>

"...There TERT plays a DNA-protective role and improves mitochondrial functioning..."

Yes, thanks VERY much for this. Puts a whole different light on whether things that increase TERT can be even speculatively claimed to be beneficial to health, because if its ONLY telomere-lengthening it's still very much up in the air, like in the stratosphere. But the above quote alone is extremely valuable, as there are many conditions and hundreds of medications that cause damage to mitochondria and impair their functioning to highly detrimental effect on the organism.

Exactly!

[Anthony_Loera]

===========================================================
You said:
1- I am trying to inform about the RISK that you and GreenPower seem to DENY in this thread. GreenPower's safety argument is UCLA papers where safety conclusions were essentially agreed in the context of AIDs patients
===========================================================
Here is an interesting quote about Cycloastragenol (TAT2) for your first question:
http://www.reuters.c...2008 BW20081110

"In previous studies we have achieved a similar antiviral enhancement by transducing CD8+ T-cells with the telomerase gene, hTERT, but pharmacologic telomerase activation has far more potential therapeutically because it is more practical to administer than gene therapy, allows for greater regulation of dosing, and importantly, we have now shown that TAT2 does not promote a loss of growth control or cell immortalization," said Thomas B. Okarma, Ph.D. M.D., Geron's president and chief executive officer.

As you mentioned, the main issue you stated was that folks with AIDS (which have very short telomeres and are shown to have telomeres of older people) are not the same as normal folks. The issue here is that it certainly appears that AIDS folks are more vulnerable to cancer, so the statement from Thomas Okarma from Geron regarding TAT2, is very important to normal folks as well since normal folks, are less likely to develop cancers over that of folks with Aids (http://cancer.about....IDS_related.htm)

===========================================================
You said:
2- You told me to get away of the road ("For folks like AgeVivo, I simply ask you to wait until there is more data") after i indicated that theory predicts that telomerase activation stimulates cancer. I'm not saying that it does so in practice in humans: we simply have not enough data. Under these conditions i ask you to state that the risk is unknown until there is more data. It is the one saying that there is no risk that must prove it, dude.
===========================================================
For your second question (or statement):
You said yourself that it is a theory. And here it is again:

if you stimulate their telomerase, transiently or not, you "extend the lifespan" of those small tumors and give them more time to transform them such that they kill you.

These damaged cells you are talking about are not considered tumors, or cancer, otherwise they would take over telomerase (although about 10% do not require telomerase at all). It is not the telomerase that makes tumors, it is the damaged cells that convert into tumors and then take over the telomerase function.

Again, here was my response after your post, which indicates no increased cancer risk over what a person already has:

transiently or not... If cells are damaged and then they try to divide... when the 'new' cells reach G1 (and P16, P53, etc are doing there job, much like those mice that are 'resistant to cancer') the cell goes is either repaired or self destructs. However, in real life I believe that sometimes some genes aren't performing very well at times... and when this happens with certain master genes, whether you increase the damaged cells telomere's or not, you will get cancer.

===========================================================
You said:
3- The link you provide shows that you misunderstood this fightaging.org page. You copy-pasted "if you are a mouse and increase telomerase activity... this may delay aging by 50%" but when translating Serrano's Spanish text the take-home message here is: "is it simply a matter of increasing telomerase activity to make a mouse immortal? The answer is no, because telomerase makes more cancer."
===========================================================
My complete post was:
"And if you are a mouse and increase telomerase activity... this may delay aging by 50% according to the fightagaing link in your post AgeVivo?". That was a question to you, and you have answered it finally.

So now lets turn to Serrano's Spanish text:

Así que parece obligado preguntar a la bióloga molecular si en esta batalla que tienen emprendida, conjuntamente contra el cáncer y el envejecimiento, es sólo cuestión de ponerle telomerasa a un ratón para hacerlo inmortal. “La respuesta es no, porque la telomerasa hace que haya más cáncer. Para que haya un tumor, tiene que activarse la telomerasa, y si un ratón tiene más telomerasa de lo normal, por ejemplo, haciendo ratones [b]transgénicos[/b], sabemos que tendrá más tumores. Lo que hemos hecho es utilizar los superratones de Manuel, [b]porque el p53 protege del cáncer y alarga en un 18% la vida de los ratones, y si a eso le añadimos el gen de la inmortalidad, la telomerasa, conseguimos que estos ratones multitransgénicos vivan una media de un 50% más, sin cáncer,[/b] lo que son palabras mayores. Eso es lo que hemos descubierto ahora”.

So lets start with "ratones transgénicos", which means that a gene was deliberately introduced into the animal. This is certainly not "transient telomerase" they are talking about that you can turn on and off easily, but of gene manipulation. What they are stating is simply that you cannot introduce telomerase permanently without P53, as P53 protects the animal from cancer. Of course what they have found is a 50% increase in lifespan in multi-transgenic mice where they introduced P53 and Telomerase genes permanently. This is not "transient telomerase" that we experience throughout life, or can turn off.

===========================================================
You said:
4- Ask Michael Rae what he thinks about your "no risk" assumption...
===========================================================
As for statement 4 about Micheal Rae:

Lets first start at the beginning: You talked to James of mfoundation.org regarding the no risk statement, and after responding to him with "transient telomerase" on that board, along with some other things, he summarized as follows:

Summary: I never said that transient telomerase activation leads to an appreciable increase in cancer risk, I attempted only to refute the argument that "telomerase [expression] provides no cancer risk." Telomerase activators may have some positive effects, but in my opinion those will be minimal. The current anti-HIV studies involving telomerase will eventually fail because the restimulated immune response will be unable to control the pathogen.

Cheers, hope this clears things up,
James.

Now, you are asking me to talk to Michael... well I prefer to talk to our consultant and expert on telomerase, who has published papers on the subject. As for Michael, no where in Micheal's information on telomerase research do we have or see "transient telomerase", most info is about transgenic animals such as Serran's above: http://www.methusela...hread.php?t=279 .

Now I believe, there is a good reason for that. Micheal, Aubrey and others are going after a pretty permanent solution to aging. I admire them and their goal, however supplements and medications are not real considerations for them. Adding 10 to 50 years is not the goal they are striving for, 10-50 additional years is much too low of a goal to consider for them.

===========================================================

Ok AgeVivo, I have answered you, and think you had a few things mixed up, but that's ok.

I am a layman after all, and spent a lot of time hammering folks that are much smarter than me, about telomerase. One such person was Valenzuela HF, who did two papers on telomerase with Effros From UCLA. As a supplement company, I wanted to make sure this was safe. That was my first priority. After consulting with Dr. V, and others, I am convinced we have some very safe and decent supplements for people to consider. I am not forcing it on folks, I am however trying to find the right dose for myself on the telomerase activators, as mentioned previously.

===========================================================

Here are the last two from your post, since I found them 'interesting':

a) Why do you think that "TA-65 is likely cycloastragenol"? What does it imply?
Well, 5mg is all that is needed accrding to TA Sciences, It's a supplement, and TA Sciences get's it from Geron. Sounds like TAT2 to me... but of course I could be wrong. It implies that they are under FDA guidelines just as we are, for Astragalus extract supplements.

b) If someone taking Astragaloside IV had cancer, would you know it?
This second one, reminds me of "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Well, to help change the perspective a little, lets instead talk about how a typical older gentleman can take some time to become a little bit healthier (hang in there, I am actually answering your crazy question) Here goes a suggestion for you as an older gentleman: Why not instead try the following to see if you can improve your life a bit, and definitely not use any telomerase activator from anyone (Geron, TA sciences or our company) Instead, let's try these basic changes on diet and exercise:

Item 1- Adopt a diet limited to 10% fat and which contained a low amount of refined carbohydrates, abundant amounts of whole grains, fruit and vegetables, and supplemental soy protein powder, fish oil, vitamin E, selenium, and vitamin C.

Item 2- Engage in moderate aerobic exercise for one half hour per day and one hour stress management periods for six days per week.

If you did the two items mentioned above and had cancer, would you know it? Of course that is a silly question. But the truth of the matter, is that a study was done involving 24 patients doing the two items above. At the end of three months, telomerase levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells had increased by 29 percent, these folks had cancer yet PSA levels improved.

http://www.articlesb...ity-615582.html

I'll leave you to chew on that for a bit.

Cheers

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 09 August 2009 - 05:22 AM.

[AgeVivo]

i'm impressed by your fast analysis and answer... and how you interpret things the way you want:

safety conclusions were essentially agreed in the context of AIDs patients

folks with AIDS (...) have very short telomeres
AIDS folks are more vulnerable to cancer, so normal folks, are less likely to
develop cancers over that of folks with Aids

From that you infer that normal people are not at risk of TAT2? wrong inference
Turn it that way: TAT2's risk of cancer was considered acceptable/negligeable/compensated in the case of AIDS patients in light of their already high cancer incidence that is likely caused by too short lymphocyte telomeres (because of extreme lymphocyte cell division) depressing their immune system. If you don't already have a high cancer incidenced caused by too short lymphoctye telomeres, the reasoning does not apply, and you should wonder why you take a cancer risk to treat a condition that you do not have.

It is not the telomerase that makes tumors, it is the damaged cells that convert into tumors and then take over the telomerase function.

and --in this theory-- telomerase activation helps damaged cells survive and divide so that you develop dangerous cancers. Using specific words does not change that.

in real life I believe that sometimes some genes aren't performing very well at times... and when this happens with certain master genes, whether you increase the damaged cells telomere's or not, you will get cancer.

pff. it is like saying that you believe that we will die one day so potentially dying earlier does not increase the probability of dying.

"And if you are a mouse and increase telomerase activity... this may delay aging by 50% according to the fightagaing link in your post AgeVivo?". That was a question to you, and you have answered it finally

It didn't look like a question (especially when telling me to wait for more data), and the answer is that you misunderstood the take home message that is closest to astragaloside IV.

So lets start with "ratones transgénicos", which means that a gene was deliberately introduced into the animal. This is certainly not "transient telomerase"

A take-home message is that telomerase overexpression is risky; you decide to imagine that it does not apply to transient telomerase!

no where in Micheal's information on telomerase research do we have or see "transient telomerase"

A take-home message is that telomerase overexpression is risky; you decide to imagine that it does not apply to transient telomerase!

Micheal, Aubrey and others are going after a pretty permanent solution to aging. I admire them and their goal, however supplements and medications are not real considerations for them.

you mean that there are conflicts of interest, and i second you: it sometimes prevents objectiveness, even if your intentions are good.

10-50 additional years is much too low of a goal to consider for them.

In discussions like this one, Roy Walford used to say: "Show me the 45-month-old mouse". I think he was right about such a non-foggy way to push life-extension.

Edited by AgeVivo, 09 August 2009 - 12:29 PM.

[AgeVivo]

for some reason i had to make 2 messages because of the number of quotes:

Ok AgeVivo, I have answered you, and think you had a few things mixed up, but that's ok.

same

I am a layman after all, and spent a lot of time hammering folks that are much smarter than me, about telomerase. One such person was Valenzuela HF, who did two papers on telomerase with Effros From UCLA. As a supplement company, I wanted to make sure this was safe. That was my first priority. After consulting with Dr. V, and others, I am convinced we have some very safe and decent supplements for people to consider. I am not forcing it on folks, I am however trying to find the right dose for myself on the telomerase activators, as mentioned previously.

That's great, i'm sure it must be great to work with someone motivated like you. Please be less convinced that you have some very safe supplements and admit that there is a cancer risk until we have more data:

TAT2 (...) they are under FDA guidelines just as we are, for Astragalus extract supplements.

i wonder about the porportion of supplement-takers who develop cancers. Only a fraction may be reported and then it will only be highlighted if the relation is obvious; which is not when people take many supplements. (Still, the system is not perfect, but it is better than no system)

reminds me of "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

yes, that's what my question meant.

At the end of three months, telomerase levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells had increased by 29 percent, these folks had cancer yet PSA levels improved. http://www.articlesb...ity-615582.html

interesting. playing with telomerase is dangerous, rodent lifespan tests and serious controls are among the best tools we have

Edited by AgeVivo, 09 August 2009 - 12:39 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi AgeVivo,

The fact is that Transient Telomerase is an activity your body uses today, even if you do not take any Telomerase Activators.

================================================================================
On one end:
AgeVivo believes that there is cancer risk with any type of telomerase, while his mentor James who he initially asked about this, has stated to me: "I never said that transient telomerase activation leads to an appreciable increase in cancer risk."

On the other end:
I believe that Transient Telomerase does not provide any increased risk.
================================================================================

While AgeVivo finds it acceptable to quote James from Mfoundation, only when it suits a particular need, I am somehow not allowed to consider experts opinions in the field who have actually done lab work, and research on this subject, and have published papers.

To that effect, I will agree to disagree with AgeVivo, and leave it at that.

================================================================================
Oh by the way, we are a supplement company. As a natural herbal supplement, our products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. I certainly cannot give medical advice, and suggest all folks considering any supplements, go check with your doctor first. I have to state that, because AgeVivo is constantly stating that AIDS folks would somehow use TAT2 for their benefit, and I wanted to make completely sure that all folks here understand that our supplements are not intended for these purposes at all, and want to make it crystal clear of this understanding, as we only provide herbal supplements.

The information I personally provide on this thread is intended for educational purposes only. The educational material contained in this site is based on a careful analysis of the scientific literature and the experience of our folks and consultants. Telomerase Activation is cutting edge, because of this even knowledgeable scientists have differing views as to its safety and benefits. I will tell all folks here that are interested in it, to become educated about this science and to consult their own experts prior to starting any product that contains a telomerase activator.
================================================================================


Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 09 August 2009 - 05:54 PM.

[bsm]

My only concern is the accuracy of the your tests. You replied once that Geron is using the same lab as you are for measuring telomere lengths. I highly doubt a billion dollar company would except results with a standard deviation of 1.5 years. We don't get a usefull picture until about 5 years from your first test.


After a google search, I found a couple of alternative labs that offer telomere measurements. The first one on this list should have been an obvious one but maybe they are too expensive?

-http://www.tasciences.com/testing.html

-http://www.spectracell.com/

-http://www.contractlaboratory.com/Labclass/outsource_requests_testing.cfm?testing_type=Bioanalytical

-http://www.biophysicalcorp.com/biomarker-research/telomere/

-http://www.subtelomeres.org/Wheretohavetestingperformed_282.html

Edited by bsm, 11 August 2009 - 06:46 AM.

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi bsm,

1- TA Sciences has used repeat diagnostics (not Geron), the same lab I used, so maybe they have issues regarding accuracy as well, I don't know.
2- Spectracell is new to me, and I have sent them an email, but they have not responded, regarding my inquiry.
3- The contract lab link points to bioanalytical, which I haven't heard of before.
4- Biophysical (last I spoke with them), also used repeat diagnostics.
5- The last link, doesn't show any labs, so that one is out.

Thanks for the info, I'll see if spectracell contacts me back.

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 11 August 2009 - 03:40 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

Most probably knew this but this study makes the cut here:

Telomere length in peripheral blood mononuclear cells is associated with folate status in men.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....Pubmed_RVDocSum

Human chromosomes are capped by telomeres, which consist of tandem repeats of DNA and associated proteins. The length of the telomeres is reduced with increasing cell divisions except when the enzyme telomerase is active, as in stem cells and germ cells. Telomere dysfunction has been associated with development of age-related pathologies, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease. DNA damage in the telomeric region causes attrition of telomeres. Because folate provides precursors for nucleotide synthesis and thus affects the integrity of DNA, including that of the telomeric region, folate status has the potential to influence telomere length. Telomere length is epigenetically regulated by DNA methylation, which in turn could be modulated by folate status. In this study, we determined whether folate status and the 677C > T polymorphism of the methylene tetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene are associated with the telomere length of peripheral blood mononuclear cells in healthy men. The results of our study showed that plasma concentration of folate was associated with telomere length of peripheral blood mononuclear cells in a nonlinear manner. When plasma folate concentration was above the median, there was a positive relationship between folate and telomere length. In contrast, there was an inverse relationship between folate and telomere length when plasma folate concentration was below the median. The MTHFR 677C > T polymorphism was weakly associated (P = 0.065) with increased telomere length at below-median folate status. We propose that folate status influences telomere length by affecting DNA integrity and the epigenetic regulation of telomere length through DNA methylation.

Sounds to me like vitamin B9 (folic acid) is very necessary.

Cheers
A

[Anthony_Loera]

Here is another one you probably knew about:

Accumulation of cells with short telomeres is associated with impaired zinc homeostasis and inflammation in old hypertensive participants.

Critical shortening of telomeres, likely associated with a considerable increase of senescent cells, can be observed in PBMC of individuals aged 80 and older. We investigated the relationship between critical telomere shortening and zinc status in healthy or hypertensive participants with or without cardiovascular disease in old and very old participants. Telomere shortening and accumulation of cells with short telomeres (percent of cells with short telomeres) in advancing age was evident in patients and healthy controls, but exacerbated in those patients aged 80 and older. Moreover, in very old patients, the accumulation of % CST may impair intracellular zinc homeostasis and metallothioneins expression, which itself is linked to an increased number of inflammatory agents, thereby suggesting the existence of a possible causal relationship between % CST and zinc homeostasis. The determination of % CST could be a more reliable means than the simple measure of telomere length as fundamental parameter in ageing to determine whether individuals are still able to respond to stress.

Yes... cellular Zinc nutrition...

Cheers
A

[Anthony_Loera]

While telomere length is considered at times one of the things that may measure healthy aging, this study states that there is a correlation between short telomere and a particular cause of heart failure:

Renal dysfunction is associated with shorter telomere length in heart failure.
http://www.springerl...4012483786158g/

Background Renal dysfunction is a frequent comorbidity associated with high mortality in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). The intrinsic biological age might affect the ability of the kidney to cope with the challenging environment caused by CHF. We explored the association between leukocyte telomere length, a marker for biological age, and renal function in patients with CHF.
Methods and results Telomere length was determined by a real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction in 866 CHF patients. Renal function was estimated with the simplified Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation. The median age was 74 (interquartile range 64–79) years, 61% male, left ventricular ejection fraction of 30 (23–44)%, and the estimated glomerular filtration rate was 53 (40–68) ml/min/1.73 m2. Telomere length was associated with renal function (correlation coefficient 0.123, P < 0.001). This relationship remained significant after adjustment for age, gender, age of CHF onset (standardized-beta 0.091, P = 0.007). Also additionally adjusting for the severity of CHF and baseline differences did not change our findings.
Conclusion The association between shorter leukocyte telomere length and reduced renal function in heart failure suggests that intrinsic biological aging affects the ability of the kidney to cope with the systemic changes evoked by heart failure.

A

[Anthony_Loera]

K,

I found this as well, regarding what tissue types showed telomere shortening:

Telomere
http://www.ncbi.nlm....5?dopt=Abstract

We reviewed correlations among telomere length, aging and carcinogenesis. Southern blot analysis showed that telomere shortening occurred with aging in all human tissues except for brain and myocardium. We investigated the telomere lengths of individual cell types in human tissues using a Q-FISH method and an original software package, "Tissue Telo". Q-FISH revealed that in squamous epithelia, NTCR corresponding to telomere length was significantly highest in basal cells and lowest in prickle cells, and that telomere length regressed at a certain rate in each cell type except for fibroblasts. Mean telomere length was significantly less in background tissue squamous epithelia of patients with cancer than in normal controls without cancer. We demonstrated telomere shortening and chromosomal instability in the background and normal control with excessively shortened telomeres. The data suggest that cancer arises from epithelial cells with short telomeres.

I find it interesting that the brain and myocardium appears not to show telomere shortening according to this abstract.

A

[niner]

Sounds to me like vitamin B9 (folic acid) is very necessary.

Or very unnecessary? That's really weird. From a telomere standpoint, it's best if your folate is either high or low, but not in the middle. Biology is complicated.

[Anthony_Loera]

Woops.. yup niner, I somehow reread it this morning... when I was fully awake and caught it late.. :D
"In contrast, there was an inverse relationship between folate and telomere length when plasma folate concentration was below the median."

A

[osris]

Hi, I just came across this thread today. It has been an informative and entertaining read. I started off hopeful that Astral Fruit would be a good supplement to take, but as I read more and more of the thread doubts crept in, and I no longer think so.

I was principally disappointed by Anthony's despondency over it not being very effective in his case, then concern entered my mind as I read AgeVivo's posts and his concerns that the risk or not of cancer has yet to be fully established. My concern was further fuelled by Vincent mentioning his skin cancer, and the possibility that it could, just could, be connected to the supplement.

I admire Anthony's honesty in this thread, but fear it may lose him potential customers for what could be a promising product once its safety and efficacy can be scientifically determined.