2189 replies to this topic

[Tom Andre F. (ex shinobi)]

I just get my bottle of TA65. I will test everything by next week.

[marcobjj]

awesome, let us know how the tests go.

[niner]

I just get my bottle of TA65. I will test everything by next week.

The best telomere test is also the cheapest and easiest. It's new saliva-based technology from Telome.com. The thing that makes it better is that it tells you the fraction of critically short telomeres, not just the average length. Telomerase doesn't act efficiently on telomeres that are longer than the critical length, so you can't tell if the therapy is working by looking at averages. Telome's "premium" test is the one that give you this information. It's 299 USD. Quantity discounts are available. Preston Estep, one of the company's founders, did a podcast here recently. I wonder if he would do a deal with us if we were to round up some Longecity people to get a batch of tests?

[smithx]

I'd be interested in a discount telomere test, if a Longecity deal is set up.

[Breestyle]

I am currently in the process of getting expanded blood work (for me as well as for my 16.5 yo dog) and a few hormone tests done prior to initiating a personal trial of C60 so I'd also be interested in a test if Longecity puts a deal together.

[Hebbeh]

I'd be interested.

[BobSeitz]

Likewise.

[marcobjj]

I just get my bottle of TA65. I will test everything by next week.

The best telomere test is also the cheapest and easiest. It's new saliva-based technology from Telome.com. The thing that makes it better is that it tells you the fraction of critically short telomeres, not just the average length. Telomerase doesn't act efficiently on telomeres that are longer than the critical length, so you can't tell if the therapy is working by looking at averages. Telome's "premium" test is the one that give you this information. It's 299 USD. Quantity discounts are available. Preston Estep, one of the company's founders, did a podcast here recently. I wonder if he would do a deal with us if we were to round up some Longecity people to get a batch of tests?

are these salilva measurements also based on T-Cells like the blood tests? It would be cool to to have a measurement of hair and skin cells to verify Cycloastragenol is effective on all groups of cells.

Edited by marcobjj, 07 June 2013 - 03:25 AM.

[hav]

I just get my bottle of TA65. I will test everything by next week.

... Telome's "premium" test is the one that give you this information. It's 299 USD. Quantity discounts are available. Preston Estep, one of the company's founders, did a podcast here recently. I wonder if he would do a deal with us if we were to round up some Longecity people to get a batch of tests?

I'd be interested too. Only reason I didn't jump on their previous promotion was the delay between the sign-up/ordering date and the actual processing date which seemed somewhat vague and possibly scheduled to occur sometime in the Summer... seems to me that the best time for submitting saliva samples would be anytime except the Summer when they might degrade in transit. Unless you go directly to their processing location yourself. If he does another podcast that might be something to ask him about.

Howard

[niner]

are these salilva measurements also based on T-Cells like the blood tests? It would be cool to to have a measurement of hair and skin cells to verify Cycloastragenol is effective on all groups of cells.

Here's the relevant section from the FAQ at the Telome site:

Q: Is saliva as good as blood for testing telomeres? What is the source of DNA in saliva?
Yes! Saliva is generally equivalent to blood. In fact, DNA in saliva is actually derived from blood! In a surprising and serendipitous discovery scientists recently found that people who have received bone marrow transplants bear the genes of the donor in both their blood and their saliva, but not in other cells! In another publication in Nature Communications, it was shown that telomeres shorten at equivalent rates in the somatic tissues of adults. Therefore, saliva telomere length is a reliable indicator of telomere length generally throughout the body. The one complication in using saliva to measure telomeres is that saliva contains DNA from bacteria and other microbes. Our suite of collection, processing, and analysis technologies enable us to collect samples by mail and courier, then extract and test purified DNA directly from saliva, without interference from microbial DNA—and without needles!

[DorianGrey]

There're only so many substances which can differ between TA65 and HTA/HTA98 if they are extracted "only" from Astragalus Membranaceus.

But let's assume that HTA is HTA98 and that it consist of 98% Cycloastragenol (5mg or 10 mg) and then "random substances which we didn't manage to filter away". Then the poor results according to this report would indicate that Cycloastragenol would need some help of the other substances available in the plant in order to be more effective. This would also be in line with the mediocre "almost +/-0 results" I got when using Cycloastragenol, 5 mg for six months without anything else added than Chitosan, 1 mg. Which obviously did not boost the effect of the Cycloastragenol.

Let's then assume that TA65 is only 5% Cycloastragenol and then "ordinary Astragalus extract which we kept in order to have some other stuff in the pill". Then this report would indicate this to be a more effecient mix of ingridients.This is of course only speculation, the other 95% could be standardized on some specific subset of the plants other substances, but might in any case suggest you shouldn't use pure Cycloastragenol when it's not as effective. You might want to complement it with some other Astragalus extract of some kind.

Well, what I think was going on with you is that 5mg of cycloastragenol just wasn't enough. When you took a larger dose of a mixed astragalus extract, the cycloastragenol was synthesized (microbially in the gut of metabolically) from other astrogalosides (all that's needed is a simple enzymatic cleavage, so this is not unlikely) and you effectively got a larger dose of cycloastragenol.

I don't think we should assume that HTA is the same as HTA98, because in the paper they say that HTA is a mixed product, while Tony Mackenzie says that HTA98 is cycloastragenol. The "98" was probably tacked on to the name to distinguish it from an earlier HTA product. We really need Anthony to sort this out.

It is also very possible that Cycloastragenol did work for you, by decreasing the number of critically short telomeres. The number of critically short telomeres is thought to be more important data then mean telomere length.

- when Bill Andrews tested TA65 with 12 subjects over the course of a year, he found that mean telomere length did still decrease, however the number of critically short telomeres also decreased. (source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bmMv6dcsgE)

-Dr Ed Park measured his telomeres regularly and found that both his mean telomere length and critically short telomeres decreased in the first 6 months. After that his critically short telomeres continued to decrease, but his mean telomere length went up. After years of taking TA65 his mean telomere length is that of an 18 year old according to tests. (source: http://www.rechargeb...ark.php?page=41)

These are amazing results by Dr. Park, 1400bp (mean) in 4 years, i.e. 350bp/year (mean), an increase about 4 times more than what you lose during a year. And he states he didn't take supplements or hormones. To me that looks a bit too good to be true and very simplistic. The scans are very low resolution and he is running the first anti-aging clinic based on TA65. Also I noticed that the absolute value from 2012 (9800bp) is well within the range a 44 year old can expect, I've seen a measurement that even a hundred year old can have such long telomers: http://www.pnas.org/...00/F3.large.jpg , I don't think the method of measurement changes the outcome. The site doesn't even state whether he is following the Patton protocol (there's a section on that) or if he takes TA65 continuously without breaks (well, somehow it's implied).
Any other thoughts? Or more detailed reports from Dr Park or other individuals?

[marcobjj]

what's absolute value? it says 9800bp is his median telomere length.

Edited by marcobjj, 22 June 2013 - 12:36 AM.

[solarfingers]

I will be seeing my doc next week before starting my c60 to get a good reading of my blood work. I'm considering adding Adrafinil to my nootropic stack as well and want to get a baseline liver enzyme reading. It would be useful to get my telomere's tested as well. As far as Astragalus is concerned I take 45g a day of raw powder split-up into three servings of 3tbs. This should provide the equivelance of one dosage of Astragaloside IV according the Anthony. I believe it is commonly held that the powder is more bio-available than the extracts.

Edited by solarfingers, 22 June 2013 - 05:29 PM.

[solarfingers]

The root powder of the herb; more nutrients, more of everything, carbs, protein, but less ratio of certain compounds. It will be a tad bit of a different effect. I've always used the extracts, minus a few times.

From this thread:

Remember guys:

The difference is that regular astragalus does not usually have a high amount of Astragaloside IV. Here are the amounts of astragalus and the amount of astragaloside iv contained in these amounts:

If we calculate astragaloside iv amount in these astragulus dosages it is interesting that there is not very much in it:
9 grams of Astragalus = 14.4mg of Astragaloside IV
15 grams of Astragalus = 24mg of Astragaloside IV
30 grams of Astragalus = 48mg of Astragaloside IV
60 grams of Astragalus = 96mg of Astragaloside IV
120 grams of Astragalus = 192mg of Astragaloside IV

I just wanted to make sure you guys are taking enough Astragalus to make a difference.

Cheers
A

Anthony is a vendor of Astragaloside IV. I believe he knows what he is talking about. This information does not help him sell his product so I give him an authoritative rating of 9 out of 10 on this one.

James Green also supports taking raw Astragalus powder and says it can be taken alone to lengthen telomeres.

* Note that I take 45g a day not 45mg. That was a typo.

Edited by solarfingers, 22 June 2013 - 05:30 PM.

[BobSeitz]

To respond to "Dorian Grey's" comments and questions concerning Dr. Park's and his patients' results, It's my understanding that when Dr. Park enrolled in the first public testing of TA-65 in 2007, his median telomere length was 9,100 base pairs. When his median telomere length were tested again in 2008, it had dropped to 8,400 base pairs(!?) At the time, (1) his father was dying of brain cancer, and (2) he had lost a lot of retirement money in the stock market debacle of 2008. He wrote that he wasn't too concerned about this shortening of his median leukocyte telomere length. He was feeling quite good, and his health had markedly improved. Then in January, 2012, his median telomere length was tested again and this time, it mediand 9,800 base pairs in length. You can use his 2008 median telomere length of 8,400 base pairs as a baseline, arriving at a 1,400-base-pair increase by January, 2012, or you can use his original 2007 median telomere length of 9,100 base pairs as a baseline, implying a gain of 700 base pairs over a 4½-year period.

I'm interested in this for two reasons. First, Dr. Park's median telomere length has increased over a significant period of time (several years) rather than decreased, giving us at least one sample of telomere lengthening to assess what happens when median telomere lengths increase in humans over time, as opposed to decreasing. Second, Dr. Park already had relatively long telomeres in 2007, so this doesn't appear to me to be compensatory lengthening of relatively short telomeres. I think it's significant because it appears that Dr. Park's already-long telomeres were lengthened even further.
The next question would be: what's happened to the median length of Dr. Park's telomeres since January, 2012? Have they continued to extend?

Dr. Park has given two examples of telomere lengthening in his patients in his emailed newsletter. One of these is Bill Harris. To quote Dr. Park:

• Bill Harris started TA-65 at the age of 77 with a telomere length of 4100 base pairs.

• After two years of full dose, at the age of 79, he now measures 5500 base pairs.
• If we assume 100 base pairs of telomere erosion per year and the two years of aging, he measures 16 years younger than when he started!!

The median lymphocyte telomere length at age 77 is, perhaps, around 5,600 base pairs, and at 79, is, maybe, 5,500 base pairs, so Bill Harris' course of TA-65 seemingly extended his median telomere length by 1,400 base pairs, from a... scanty?.. 4,100 base pairs to a typical (for 79) 5,500 base pairs.

Note that with a sample size of 1, I can't know whether TA-65 was responsible for this dramatic median telomere extension, or whether something else was the prime mover. Note also that Mr. Harris median telomere length was below average for his age, and that two years later, it had risen to average for his age.

The second example is that of "Brian M.". His story is summarized in the linked chart. His median telomere length went from 5,760 base pairs to 7,443 base pairs over a period of 16 months. This represents an increase of approximately 1,700 base pairs over a 16-month period. At age 66, the median telomere length for the average Joe is slightly less than 6,000 base pairs, so Brian M's starting point was slightly below the average 66-year-old's median telomere length. His endpoint after taking a total of something like 2,468 TA-65 capsules apparently places him in the 82nd percentile among 68-year-olds. From a shortest-telomere standpoint, he apparently reduced his "shortest telomere age" by 14 years.
Dr. Park is measuring physiological age changes at his Recharge Biomedical Clinic, which should provide some quantitative measure of the effects of TA-65.

I'd personally like to see the result of a prospective study (it wouldn't have to be placebo-controlled) following a specific set of patients for a year or two.

[BobSeitz]

OOPs! It looks as though, with the aid of the "find and replace" tool, I coined the new word, "mediand", in my last post. That word should have been "measured". Sorry.

[marcobjj]

OOPs! It looks as though, with the aid of the "find and replace" tool, I coined the new word, "mediand", in my last post. That word should have been "measured". Sorry.

on the video that I embedded on post 1962, the study showed that half of the 12 subjects experienced increase in mean telomere length taking TA65 for an year. 10 out of 12 subjects experienced a decrease in percentage of short telomeres:






full paper at:

http://www.agemed.or...US/Default.aspx

Edited by marcobjj, 23 June 2013 - 11:19 PM.

[DorianGrey]

Thank you Bob for responding to my question, I had not looked at the testimonies as I was expecting some "feel better" or "less gray hair" statements. In the end it's once more anecdotal evidence, but it gives us some ballpark number. 2468 * 5mg/capsule = 12,5g. I can get 100 capsules for 200$, i.e. 500mg. I really hope the dose-response is not linear.

That is a very interesting study AMM has performed. In the end they state there is some kind of dose-response correlation but don't elaborate, so it is unlikely this is clear cut. I could see a number of factors that could play a role for negative outcome in some individuals, doesn't mean the drug isn't working in general. That is not unusual in a clinical study.

It's interesting to see how patient 12 responded well in both categories, average and shortest telomers, and patient 10 did well with average, but only slight improvement for shortest telomers. Patient two and three had good improvements with shortest telomers but even lost average length. So average and shortest telomers are almost independent biomarkers in some patients. The efficacy of the Patton protocol was shown with success in 5 of 13 patients for shortest telomers (the other are more or less unchanged or worsened), two out of 13 had a remarkable response with respect to the average length.

[marcobjj]

Patients 5 and 7 were, according to Bill Andrews the two youngest people in the study. He says the reason they didn't experience a decrease in percentage of short telomeres is probably because they didn't have a great number of cells with critically short telomere to get a good statistical sample.

[balance]

Is it worth the money, taking one capsule a day of TA-65, if you are a 26 year old male? Is taking 4 capsules, four times as good? Must it be taken on an empty stomach?

Educated answers really appreciated as I'm eager to try this supplement out.

Edited by piet3r, 24 June 2013 - 06:56 AM.

[DorianGrey]

@marco: Makes sense, with values of about 9kbp you still have quite long telomers. Can we derive the age of these patients somehow?

To answer piet3ers question: probably not according to the preliminary studies, if you are 26 years old and your telomers are tested 8-9kbp, better put your money towards retaining that length, excercise a sport that doesn't ruin your body, eat healthy, avoid accidents and infections, stress and depression.

Edited by DorianGrey, 24 June 2013 - 01:20 PM.

[marcobjj]

Dorian, I don't know if there's an exact conversion scale but here's the graph on rechare biomedical website. Looking at it I'd guess 9kb is the telomere length of most 20 year olds.



pietr3 unless you have a ton of disposable income I'd wait until I'm 30 to begin and just focus on healthy living like DorianGrey said. Also supplement fish oil with high DHA/EPA and a good multivitamin.

[balance]

Thx to DorianGrey and marcobjj for answering. Does this mean though that it wouldn't work at all, or that it would work but nothing noticeable? Because if I can afford it (not the full dose) then one would think every bit helps no? If it truly is such a biological clock and steady decline associated with aging?

[marcobjj]

it probably helps, but what extent that it helps t's still not certain. The aging process is still not fully understood, if you really want to buy it do it one capsule a day, the full dose is only recommended for people who are over 60.

Edited by marcobjj, 24 June 2013 - 11:51 PM.

[niner]

Taking telomerase activators might not be useful at all for young people. Telomerase does not work efficiently with telomeres that are longer than a (relatively short) critical length. Assuming the activators work at all, they are unlikely to do much for a young person. See this post for details and refs.

[marcobjj]

don't sperm cells mantain full telomere length through telomerase? don't cancer cells do the same. Also Ronald Depinho revesing aging mice back into young adults also via telomerase. And the AMM experiment above in which 6 out of 13 people had greater mean telomere length after taking TA65 for 12 months.

[niner]

We've discussed the DePinho experiment here before. I've forgotten the details, but telomere extension didn't turn old mice into young mice. They were young mice that appeared old because of an engineered telomere problem. That's very different than an actual old organism that has normal aging, along with normally aged telomeres.

[DorianGrey]

@marcobjj: the graph is for lymphocytes, not average length, although probably it's similar for the average length. I have an issue with the Gaussian approach, look at http://www.pnas.org/...00/F3.large.jpg and tell me: does that look truly Gaussian? There is a 98 year old that has excellent telomer length and almost no short cells with short telomers. I guess he doesn't look like a 20 year old, though. So there's more to aging than telomer length. But as an approximation these graphs give you a ballpark, but don't take a conclusion like "gained 14 years" literally.

From the n=13 study I guess one can conclude that with the test for average they used, 9 to 10kb is a good target for average length, below 8kb it may be a good idea to try TA-65 like supplements AND/OR if you have between 5-15% short telomers <4kb. If you got <5%, any benefit that can be measured is very borderline, you are on target already. If you got >15%, you probably got enough health issues already that will prevent you from recovering telomer length with a normal levels of supplementation.

I find the information from the study very useful, also the part in the study on CMV+ and CMV- patients is interesting. That infection really seems to burn through some immune cells. Is there a simple, private test for cytomegalovirus?

Edited by DorianGrey, 25 June 2013 - 03:34 PM.

[marcobjj]

the graph doesn't look accurate? how come the mean telomere length in the 60-69 year old group is over 10kb? the average person is supposed to have less than that at birth. 70-79 year olds having 9.73kb on average and 80-89 year olds with 9kb? the aveage values for every age group look inflated.

Edited by marcobjj, 25 June 2013 - 07:29 PM.

[Tom Andre F. (ex shinobi)]

Well, maybe telomere are actually a very... very small factor of aging... this is why mice died even earlier when supplementing with TA65. Anyway I tested the TA65 and result HPLC was: astragalosides: 6.80%, cyclo 4,15%, astragalosid IV: 3,12%. I will test the mesh size as well to know if it micronized