2189 replies to this topic

[chrono]

Well...it should be kept in mind that Anthony's "research" is essentially word of mouth at this point, as well. We just happen to like him more than we do TASciences (and his business model is obviously better) As for associations, it was mentioned earlier in the thread that Dr. V was trained by Geron. And in medical research, lack of commercial interest on the part of the researchers is generally seen as a plus.

I have a hard time believing that 5.5kg is the smallest batch size available. And by "waiting" for pure cycloastragenol, I assume you mean from Geron? It's questionable if they would release a pure version of that in the near future, if ever. So whatever anthony is cooking up is probably going to be the best option available right now.

[Anthony_Loera]

Some facts:

1- The main company (ie. Geron), will never sell pure cycloastragenol to the public as a supplement. (Yes I know this for a fact)
2- Dr. V has tested the material we used in our own supplement (http://www.jimmunol....Abstracts/90.30).
3- Dr. V has the title of Visiting Scholar at UCLA, and will work with Rita Effros (who used Geron's cycloastragenol in the original study here http://www.jimmunol....ct/181/10/7400).
4- Rita is not associated with us in anyway, and their research will be their own for the benefit of the public and UCLA.

Their goal is research, pure and simple.

5- Dr. V happens to be our Chief Science Officer, and he will be testing 1-2 more materials (not cycloastrgenol) to compare it's activity vs cycloastrgenol.

We are very lucky to have a top researcher in the field that helps lead the development of supplements and materials, at our company.

[rooter]

When I say 'back to basics', I mean questions such as:
- Who says cycloastragenol is an effective telemerase activator?
- How did we determine that resveratrol (and other compounds) block the effectiveness of telemerase activators?

There seems to be almost no research in this area, and none of it seems to be public much less peer-reviewed. I would just like to know the full scope of what we actually know, and its sources.

[chrono]

- Who says cycloastragenol is an effective telemerase activator?

The Geron patent. See the attached table from post #10 of this thread.

Also, the paper which Anthony just posted directly above you.

And, I assume, some of the in vitro tests Dr. V has done, which I too would like to know more details of.

- How did we determine that resveratrol (and other compounds) block the effectiveness of telemerase activators?

There was a lot of discussion earlier in the thread as to whether resveratrol inhibited telomerase. There was at least one study each way, but there was confusion as to whether it was applicable in normal cells, or only cancerous cells. I believe Dr. V did some in vitro tests that confirmed it interfered with the activating properties of either AIV or cyclo in normal human cells. And as Anthony's main product is probably resveratrol, I can't believe there's much ulterior motive in reporting a finding that it interferes with another product he's selling.

There is a lot of research into whether certain substances activate or inhibit telomerase. Maybe check vince's Anti-Aging Firewalls page and blog; there are a lot of links to papers there. Unfortunately, there aren't that many candidates for activators right now, which is one reason a largely speculative thread such as this has 800 posts.

A lot of people put a lot of work into this thread. Both of your fundamental questions have already been answered, at least to the extent that current research reasonably allows. If you'd really like to know the full scope of what we know, and its sources, start at post #1 and take notes. Should only take a few dozen hours, and will be a good starting point for such an understanding

[unglued]

It seems we are pretty sure that the main company investigating the activation of telemerase is not using astragalus or astragaloside IV? And that the consensus is they have moved on to using cycloastragenol (more effective?), is that right?

There was a rumor (that wound up being confirmed here, as I recall) that Geron's drug candidate TAT2 is cycloastragenol.

Geron's joint venture seems to have moved on from TAT2, having been busy screening 150 other compounds (judging from the numbering) until they found one that they successfully tested in mice:

Geron Corporation (Nasdaq: GERN) announced positive data on its orally available small molecule telomerase activator, TAT153, in an animal model of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). The data show that administration of TAT153 increased telomerase activity in the lung tissue, reduced inflammation, preserved functional lung tissue, slowed disease progression and attenuated loss of pulmonary function.
...
TAT153 is a novel and proprietary chemical entity.

-- Geron press release, 19 May 2919

I take it that "novel and proprietary" implies a new synthetic molecule made from scratch.

[chrono]

It seems we are pretty sure that the main company investigating the activation of telemerase is not using astragalus or astragaloside IV? And that the consensus is they have moved on to using cycloastragenol (more effective?), is that right?

There was a rumor (that wound up being confirmed here, as I recall) that Geron's drug candidate TAT2 is cycloastragenol.

This was confirmed; in the paper anthony linked to in his last post, TAT2 is identified as cycloastragenol.

I think in this case, the "main company" rooter was wondering about was TA, and all the speculation about which of the astragalus compounds TA-65 (and its maybe-precursors TA-41) was.

Nice find about TAT153. I wonder if it has any potential outside of lung treatment, or it that was just the model they happened to be testing it on. Anyway, hopefully Geron will patent it, and we won't have to spend hundreds of posts guessing which compound it is

[GreenPower]

Health Check 3 - Tuesday, ten days after ending six months on Cycloastragenol, flow-FISH measurement of Teleomere lengths
I have data from two earlier tests as well. I've presented them earlier in this mail thread. In order to enhance readability I'll include the results again, including parts of my old comments.

BACKGROUND
File 1: TLM_2009_March_Personal_Info_Removed.jpg
This is as close as I came to a "Baseline test". However, there are a couple of issues to be noted.
1. When the test was taken I'd been working in a very stressful environment for many years. There's a connection between stress and short telomeres in the immune systems. This connection is rather well described in this presentation: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=irUQEG4BSK4 by Elisabeth Blackburn, this years winner of the Nobel prize. This might (or might not) be the reason for my short telomeres in NK-cells.
2. Before this Baseline test I took standardised Astragalus Root Extract for more than half a year (0.5% glucosides, 70% polysaccharides) 225 mg, Raw Astragalus Root Powder 250 mg). First once a day, but soon three times a day (morning, lunch, evening). I also took Ginkgo biloba L. 100 mg (24 mg ginkgoflavonidglycosides , 6 mg terpenoids) twice daily.
3. Then, also before the Baseline test, I also had a period of about quarter when I took an ordinary root powder version of Astragalus (470mg, not standardized).
4. In two Cortisol tests I did before before the above mentioned baseline test, I had "really bad" and "very poor" (as in low levels) results respectively. Cortisol is a "stress hormone", and the levels I had in the first test were way to close to the kind you usually associate with people suffering from Addison's Disease: http://en.wikipedia....son%27s_disease . The other test (after six months on standardized Astragalus extract + Gingko Biloba) was somewhat better but still not good.

The point I want to make is that I did not start out my test period as an ordinary person. All of the items above have probably had one effect or another on my telomere lengths before I took my baseline test.


File 2: TLM_2009_September_Personal_Info_Removed
This is the follow-up test I did about half a year after the first test. The time since the first test was divided into three parts.
Period 1: Three months on Astragaloside IV (3 x 33mg) which was spread out during the day (morning, lunch, evening).
Period 2: Rest period for two weeks. No supplements were taken.
Period 3: Three months on Astragaloside IV 100mg dose with Chitosan (1 x 100mg) taken in the morning.
The latter period also included the use of Orlistat (3x120mg) with each meal and Gingko Biloba (1x100mg) in the evening.

The weekend before the follow-up test I did not take any supplements at all.


File 3: 2010_April_TST_Personal_Info_Removed
This is the follow-up test I did about half a year after the second test. The time since the first test was divided into three parts.
Period 1: 3 months on Cycloastragenol 1x5mg (including Chitosan 1mg), Gingko Biloba 1x100mg, Orlistat 2-3x120mg.
Period 2: Two week rest period
Period 3: 3 months on Cycloastragenol 1x5mg (including Chitosan 1mg), Gingko Biloba 1x100mg, Orlistat 2-3x120mg

Because of the problems with the Icelandic volcano, I had to wait one week and one weekend before doing the flow-FISH test. I did not take any supplements at all during this time.

The amount of stress during all of the above periods have been pretty much constant, working a lot of overtime and not allowing for a real rest period.


ANALYSIS/COMMENTS
Astragaloside IV
6 months on AIV and Gingko Biloba + 3 last months on Orlistat rendered the following changes from my baseline values:
Lymphocytes: 7.5-7.0 = reduction of 0.5 kb
Granulocytes: 9.1-7.4 = reduction of 1.7 kb
Naive T-cells: 8.3-7.9 = reduction of 0.4 kb
Memory T-cells: 6.3-5.6 = reduction of 0.7 kb
B cells: 8.2-8.1 = reduction of 0.1 kb
NK cells: 4.5-4.0 = reduction of 0.5 kb

For all tests, I had the lab analyze the Standard Deviation. In the first test this was included in the original price. In the second test I got it without extra cost after asking for it. In the third test I had to pay extra for it.

When using Astragaloside IV the Standard Deviations changed from
Lymphocytes: 0.6 to 0
Granulocytes: 1.2 to 0
Naive T-cells: 0.4 to 0
Memory T-cells: 0.7 to 0
B cells: 0.7 to 0
NK cells: 0.7 to 0

Cycloastragenol
6 months on Cycloastragenol (including Chitosan) and Gingko Biloba and Orlistat rendered the following changes from the last period.
Lymphocytes: 7.0-7.0 = No change
Granulocytes: 7.4-7.3 = reduction of 0.1 kb
Naive T-cells: 7.9-7.9 = No change
Memory T-cells: 5.6-5.7 = Increase of 0.1 kb
B cells: 8.1-8.2 = Increase 0.1 kb
NK cells: 4.0-4.1 = Increase of 0.1 kb

When using Cycloastragenol the Standard Deviations changed from
Lymphocytes: 0 to 0.2
Granulocytes: Still 0
Naive T-cells: 0 to 0.3
Memory T-cells: 0 to 0.2
B cells: 0 to 0.2
NK cells: 0 to 0.3


Conclusion
Using Astragaloside IV had a quite large negative effect on the telomere lengths. All of the telomeres in the measured cell types decreased in length. Several of the changes was quite large and well outside the possible fault limits of the test. Based on this results and the similar results Anthony had, I would hesitate to recommend anyone from taking Astragaloside IV as a supplement.

Using Cycloastragenol had a more interesting result. The changes was within the fault limits of the test, but at least 75% of the cell types which showed any change at all showed a slight increase in telomere length. It will be very interesting to see the results Anthony got from his test.

I welcome anyone who has a theory on the reason for the changes in standard deviation between the tests to give an explanation.


Future tests
I still have 18 months supply left of Cycloastragenol and will most likely use it up in the future. Before I got the results I had however already decided to go back to use the same supplement as I used before I took my baseline test. Therefore I will take spend the next six month period on standardised Astragalus Root Extract (0.5% glucosides, 70% polysaccharides) 225 mg, Raw Astragalus Root Powder 250 mg) and Gingkbo Biloba. I've started to phase out my use of Orlistat.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 

[stephen_b]

Conclusion
Using Astragaloside IV had a quite large negative effect on the telomere lengths.

Can you correctly conclude this without knowing how much telomere loss you would have had without astragaloside IV? It could be normal aging.

Edited by stephen_b, 23 June 2010 - 09:07 PM.

[GreenPower]

Conclusion
Using Astragaloside IV had a quite large negative effect on the telomere lengths.

Can you correctly conclude this without knowing how much telomere loss you would have had without astragaloside IV? It could be normal aging.

I haven't seen enough data around to be "sure" on anything, therefore I would love for more people to start publish their results in this group.

However, if I would have kept the same rate of decrease of telomere length rate of my Granulocytes as I did during the six months I took AIV, they wouldn't have had any telomeres left at all after 2-2.5 years. Obviously the telomeres of my Granulocytes couldn't have been decreasing in length with this speed before I took AIV or they wouldn't have had any telomeres left at the start of the test period. After ending with AIV and starting to use Cycloastragenol instead, I no longer have this quick decrease in telomere length.

If you follow the graphs attached in my previous post, you will see what the normal telomere lengths for different cell types are for different ages, and thereby you can also read out the expected rate of telomere loss.

I seem to remember that Anthony had similar results for the period when he took AIV.

[chrono]

Thanks for the report, GP. Your perseverance is much appreciated. One question: have you noticed any continued effect on hair since your earlier reports?

Sorry if you mentioned this earlier, but it isn't in my notes. Can you give us an idea how much testing cost you? I'm hoping to start some king of astragalus cycle in the next 6 months. Any info we can bring up to make testing easier would encourage more of us to get it done before we start.

I still say it might be problematic to be basing anything on these commercial telomere tests. I remember some discussion back when anthony first got his results, that the accuracy was basically like a decade's worth of base pairs. And I don't recall hearing anything solid about the precision (i.e. reproducibility) of these tests. I think a change in their own standard deviation calculations might mean that they don't quite know how well this test works themselves.

Also, I'm wondering about your decision to continue with an astragalus extract, rather than cyclo, in light of your feelings about these results. Though I suppose 99mg/day was a pretty high dose. This paper seems pretty representative of polysaccharide/A4 content. Total saccharides was 23%, A4 was about .14%. So 70% is a 3x concentration, making the A4 composition of the extract portion .42%. (.42% x 225mg) + (.14% x 250mg) = 1.295mg A4? These numbers are pretty loose; if their extraction process is more selective for certain types of polysaccharides (soluble), the total might be bumped up to 1.9mg/dose. How many of these are you going to be taking?

[bsm]

I still say it might be problematic to be basing anything on these commercial telomere tests. I remember some discussion back when anthony first got his results, that the accuracy was basically like a decade's worth of base pairs. And I don't recall hearing anything solid about the precision (i.e. reproducibility) of these tests. I think a change in their own standard deviation calculations might mean that they don't quite know how well this test works themselves.

Correct. Humans lose about 50 telomere base pairs per year and these flow fish tests are accurate to about +-500 base pairs. That's about +- 10 years. How can Geron, TA Sciences or anyone make any type of conclusions, for humans, until they have about 10-20 years worth of telomere data for a single person?
However nano measurements are just around the corner and I can't wait.

http://www.sciencedi...b40bd031d24c5e3

[rooter]

I notice a few people have marked my reputation down, including shadowhawk (whose rep is -8), Anthony_Loera (bad sport, Anthony), and simon007. Well that's OK, it just ensures that I'll never support the board, if asking fundamental questions results in hissy-fits. I am not about to look for how to mark others down, as I'm not vindictive and don't care enough.

[Anthony_Loera]

I still say it might be problematic to be basing anything on these commercial telomere tests. I remember some discussion back when anthony first got his results, that the accuracy was basically like a decade's worth of base pairs. And I don't recall hearing anything solid about the precision (i.e. reproducibility) of these tests. I think a change in their own standard deviation calculations might mean that they don't quite know how well this test works themselves.

Correct. Humans lose about 50 telomere base pairs per year and these flow fish tests are accurate to about +-500 base pairs. That's about +- 10 years. How can Geron, TA Sciences or anyone make any type of conclusions, for humans, until they have about 10-20 years worth of telomere data for a single person?
However nano measurements are just around the corner and I can't wait.

http://www.sciencedi...b40bd031d24c5e3

Yes, the error rate is +/- 0.5kb between blood draws according to Repeat Diagnostics.
I am hoping the new measurements help increase the accuracy of these telomere length tests.

GreenPower, thanks for the information you have provided, I think this is important. Even though we are only a sample size of two?
Well, it's great to see your results!

Thanks again for them.
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 24 June 2010 - 05:45 PM.

[simon007]

I notice a few people have marked my reputation down, including shadowhawk (whose rep is -8), Anthony_Loera (bad sport, Anthony), and simon007. Well that's OK, it just ensures that I'll never support the board, if asking fundamental questions results in hissy-fits. I am not about to look for how to mark others down, as I'm not vindictive and don't care enough.

There must be some sort of mistake, I didn't do anything with your reputation. I didn't even know there was such a thing up until now. I guess it's a new feature of the forum after the upgrade. I just follow this thread because of my interest in the subject.

Cheers,

Simon

[chrono]

I notice a few people have marked my reputation down, including shadowhawk (whose rep is -8), Anthony_Loera (bad sport, Anthony), and simon007. Well that's OK, it just ensures that I'll never support the board, if asking fundamental questions results in hissy-fits. I am not about to look for how to mark others down, as I'm not vindictive and don't care enough.

Reputation is a new feature. Lots of people are discussing getting rid of downrating, or the whole thing. I assume you picked these three names because they're the 3 "last visited" on your profile page. You don't rate reputation on the profile page; it's the + and - buttons on the individual posts. I guess someone didn't like a few of your questions a little further up the page, for some reason ("what is a CSO?", for instance). There's no way to see who made these votes, so you probably owe those users an apology, though it's really not relevant to this discussion in the first place.

[Suzudo]

2006 (Geron):
http://v3.espacenet....421&DB=&locale=

2008 (geron):
http://v3.espacenet....OC&locale=en_V3


2002 (andrews):
http://v3.espacenet....OC&locale=en_V3

Dyskerin Activator:
http://v3.espacenet....9202503A1&KC=A1


Structure of inhibitors (for comparations):
http://v3.espacenet....7128968A1&KC=A1
http://v3.espacenet....010030999A&KC=A


methods of work? :
http://v3.espacenet....5089883A1&KC=A1


Shilima khemen

[Suzudo]

The patent of gerom 2008 includes images in "mosaics"


Shilima khemen

[elp]

Is the astral fruit going to go on sale again? Is their a mailing list for this?

Thanks

Edited by elp, 29 June 2010 - 01:44 AM.

[unglued]

I think a change in their own standard deviation calculations might mean that they don't quite know how well this test works themselves.

Correct. Humans lose about 50 telomere base pairs per year and these flow fish tests are accurate to about +-500 base pairs. That's about +- 10 years. How can Geron, TA Sciences or anyone make any type of conclusions, for humans, until they have about 10-20 years worth of telomere data for a single person?

I half-jokingly said before that you could get better results cheaper by going to the Guess Your Age booth at any carnival. They have to be more accurate than ten years or they'd be losing money. But to answer your question more directly, Geron is nowhere near the stage of testing on humans, and has only tested these compounds on human cells in vitro (and recently their new compound on lab animals with short life spans), as far as I've heard. My impression is these preliminary studies tested directly for the presence of the telomerase enzyme and did not wait to see if the telomeres lengthened (an effect telomerase is known to have, from previous studies).

As for the tests, I don't know why the standard deviation would change, but I do know that the SD reported by Repeat Diagnostics is not based on their a priori confidence in the test. They told me, "The standard deviation is acquired from one blood sample split in two and processed at the same time. It is used to determine the accuracy of the sample processing. Therefore a SD of zero indicated that both samples generated the sample result. Any duplicate test is rejected if the SD is greater than 0.2." (I notice you have some 0.3 SD's, so maybe that's changed or they allow more variance in the tests they've added recently.)

Interesting, they also said, "From our experience, results from repeat samples testing over time have been very accurate." That sounds like they're talking about testing taken from the same patient several months apart, not about the SD from one sample. They definitely didn't confirm that a change of 0.5 is within the accuracy of their measurements and meaningless.

[bsm]

I understand that telomere lengths can vary greatly between cells but what about the accuracy of a single measurement.

Is the accuracy of a single measurement off by +-500kb? If not, what is the range of accuracy for a single telomere using flow-fish?

[Anthony_Loera]

Is the accuracy of a single measurement off by +-500kb? If not, what is the range of accuracy for a single telomere using flow-fish?

Repeat Diagnostics stated that it can be off between blood samples taken from the body. (one sample taken today can be different from a sample taken tomorrow). But the accuracy of the machine is supposed to be very good when measuring the single sample.

I hope this makes sense.

A

[unglued]

Is the accuracy of a single measurement off by +-500kb? If not, what is the range of accuracy for a single telomere using flow-fish?

Repeat Diagnostics stated that it can be off between blood samples taken from the body. (one sample taken today can be different from a sample taken tomorrow). But the accuracy of the machine is supposed to be very good when measuring the single sample.

I hope this makes sense.

A

By itself, it makes perfect sense. In combination with other things I believe to be true, I can't make any sense of it at all.

Unless blood is very heterogeneous in terms of the telomere length of a given cell type -- so that we have clumps of short-telomere cells and clumps of long-telomere cells traveling together, and a blood draw randomly draws from one or the other -- the only way I can think of for the machine to be accurate but the results to vary from day to day is if our telomere lengths are constantly fluctuating. That isn't how I thought it worked. That would mean that either telomeres are not a marker for biological aging (unless we grow years older or younger from day to day) or that blood cell telomeres are not a good surrogate for telomeres throughout our body.

But the Wikipedia article confirms what I thought I understood: "As a measure of systemic telomere length, peripheral blood leukocyte telomere length is generally preferred. Systemic telomere length has been proposed as a marker of biological aging." (And of course, we telomerase fans are hoping it works both ways: unlike dyeing your hair or getting a face lift, reversing this marker actually would make us youthful in other ways, including life expectancy.)

Those statements can't all be true, can they? That blood cells have telomere lengths that represent those throughout the body, which in turn are markers for biological aging, but they randomly fluctuate from day to day by as much as they change in 10 to 15 years worth of aging, even though the machine is measuring them accurately. Can someone reconcile those statements? If not, which one should we disbelieve?

Edited by unglued, 10 July 2010 - 10:31 PM.

[niner]

Is the accuracy of a single measurement off by +-500kb? If not, what is the range of accuracy for a single telomere using flow-fish?

Repeat Diagnostics stated that it can be off between blood samples taken from the body. (one sample taken today can be different from a sample taken tomorrow). But the accuracy of the machine is supposed to be very good when measuring the single sample.

I hope this makes sense.

A

By itself, it makes perfect sense. In combination with other things I believe to be true, I can't make any sense of it at all.

Unless blood is very heterogeneous in terms of the telomere length of a given cell type -- so that we have clumps of short-telomere cells and clumps of long-telomere cells traveling together, and a blood draw randomly draws from one or the other -- the only way I can think of for the machine to be accurate but the results to vary from day to day is if our telomere lengths are constantly fluctuating. That isn't how I thought it worked. That would mean that either telomeres are not a marker for biological aging (unless we grow years older or younger from day to day) or that blood cell telomeres are not a good surrogate for telomeres throughout our body.

But the Wikipedia article confirms what I thought I understood: "As a measure of systemic telomere length, peripheral blood leukocyte telomere length is generally preferred. Systemic telomere length has been proposed as a marker of biological aging." (And of course, we telomerase fans are hoping it works both ways: unlike dyeing your hair or getting a face lift, reversing this marker actually would make us youthful in other ways, including life expectancy.)

Those statements can't all be true, can they? That blood cells have telomere lengths that represent those throughout the body, which in turn are markers for biological aging, but they randomly fluctuate from day to day by as much as they change in 10 to 15 years worth of aging, even though the machine is measuring them accurately. Can someone reconcile those statements? If not, which one should we disbelieve?

I think it can be reconciled. I don't think that the leukocyte telomere length fluctuates daily, but there has to be a sample prep procedure that starts from the blood draw itself, and subsequently involves addition of reagents and stabilizers, shipping, and further processing at the lab where the measurements are done. The repeatability at the machine probably assumes that the same sample is being used, thus removing all the prep from the equation. It's sort of an irrelevant number, since all the other operations will necessarily happen for each measurement. That's my hypothesis on it, anyway. I've had some experience with automated assays, and the repeatability varies significantly depending on whether you run each sample in a batch twice in a row or you run two large batches two times. (i.e. 11 22 33 44 vs. 1234 1234)

[Suzudo]

Hello


http://jeb.biologist.../full/213/9/i-a


Shilima khemen

[unglued]

"Geron Provides Update on Telomerase Activation Program"
http://finance.yahoo...4046364498.html

Several telomerase activator drug candidates have been advanced into early efficacy studies, including animal models of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and in vitro studies employing immune cells from HIV patients. Geron plans to continue those studies in order to advance a compound to the clinic.

...

Controlled activation of the enzyme telomerase may restore the regenerative and functional capacity of cells in various organ systems impacted by senescence, injury or chronic disease.

The IPS animal-model paper is this one: "Telomerase Activator Prevents The Development Of Lung Fibrosis In Bleomycin Mouse Model"

I don't have access, but I assume the telomerase activator is TAT153, not the natural compound we're taking that we believe is TAT2.

Geron Corporation (Nasdaq: GERN) announced positive data on its orally available small molecule telomerase activator, TAT153, in an animal model of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). The data show that administration of TAT153 increased telomerase activity in the lung tissue, reduced inflammation, preserved functional lung tissue, slowed disease progression and attenuated loss of pulmonary function.
...
TAT153 is a novel and proprietary chemical entity.

-- Geron press release, 19 May 2919

I take it that "novel and proprietary" implies a new synthetic molecule made from scratch.

The HIV in-vitro study has a free online abstract and full text here. It was published a year and a half ago and did use TAT2; I think it's part of the evidence for TAT2 that led to the interest of readers of this topic.

Edited by unglued, 15 July 2010 - 07:54 PM.

[Flying Hermit]

Biotivia has product called BioSpan+ that contain telomerase activator astragaloside IV ( 150 mg )
and also telomerase inhibitors like trans-resveratrol, tumeric and silymarin.

1. Do you think BioSpan+ is safe to use and what periods?
2. Do you think BioSpan+ will activate telomerase or do you think it´s
just good Sirt1-activator?

To the Dream,

Trefoglio

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi Trefoglio,

1- Telomerase inibitors should not be taken at the same time as telomerase activators.
2- The reason we use Cycloastragenol, is because it is more soluble than Astragaloside IV and has a UCLA test to back it up, while Astragaloside IV does not.
3- Again, I need to make this clear: Telomerase inhibitors should not be taken at the same time as telomerase activators.

I had recently warned people not to consider products that contained both a telomerase activator and a telomerase inhibitors , if they were looking for a good supplement that supports telomerase.

The problem is that one would likely cancel the others benefits out.

Other than that look for the following:
===============================================================
1- COA made by reputable lab in the USA. The COA's for this product does not show Astragaloside IV content at all. (A spec sheet is not a COA)

2- If they report a new material that has 'telomerase support', they should also provide a reference to a study that backs it up. I see none for the ingredient in this product. Unlike this manufacturer and others, we have moved on to Cycloastragenol because of the results of telomere testing done by repeat diagnostics.

3- You should always be able to see the particular ingredient on the label, so If someone claims that a product has Cycloastragenol... according to the FDA it must be placed on the label under the "Supplement Facts" listing.
===============================================================

Case in point: I was shown the latest label for for a product called TA65 that people believe has Cycloastragenol in it, only to find out... it simply says 'Astragalus Extract' on the label. So be careful, and ask to see the label.

Oh, and did I mention... Not to buy a product with both resveratrol and a telomerase activator in the same capsule, if you are strictly considering telomerase activation?

And finally, since folks buying products which have inhibitors and activators would be probably wasting a bit of money regarding telomerase support IMHO, then it's likely they are looking at the resveratrol in the product (which is not even 98% pure) and simply buying it for Sirt1 activation. If you are looking for a good Sirt1 activator, there are cheaper products out there:
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=36436

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 18 July 2010 - 02:46 PM.

[medievil]

hey Anthony

Do you know any sites where i can order your products without credit card?

Thank you.

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi medievil, I typically like to concentrate on the topic at hand, but IM me and I'll give ya some options.

[Flying Hermit]

Health Check 3 - Tuesday, ten days after ending six months on Cycloastragenol, flow-FISH measurement of Teleomere lengths
I have data from two earlier tests as well. I've presented them earlier in this mail thread. In order to enhance readability I'll include the results again, including parts of my old comments.
[...]

You told you have used Chitosan with Cycloastragenol. Did you use chitosan also with Astragaloside IV? I wonder if the chitosan did made a positive difference with Cyclo?

Edited by chrono, 12 August 2010 - 04:14 AM.
edited quote for length