2189 replies to this topic

[marcobjj]

Why is higher better? I am not sure superlong telomers have any real benefit once you are able to contain attrition.

HeLa is a cancerous cell and divides rapidly, almost once a day. Therefore the telomerase activity has to be very high. I guess bone marrow is among the tissues that regenerate fastest in human,hematopoeitic stem cells divide every few weeks. Considering the turnover rates, I guess a HeLa of 10 would be more than sufficient to slow down the telomerase aging mechanism in humans to a point where other mechanism play a more important role. Maybe 2 is already enough if the activator gets to the tissue.

In a nutshell: You have to put telomerase activity in relation to cell division.

Any idea where Silymarin scores?

thanks for the info, that is interesting. My idea behind "higher is better" is that you could potentially use a powerful activator to add decades to your lifespan with only one treatment (see Blasco Study), as opposed to taking a pill every day for the rest of your life.

Any idea where Silymarin scores?

they're testing Product B as of October '13 to know if it's capable of lenghtening telomeres (as opposed to just slowing down the shortening). Hopefully they'll also publish how it scores in the HeLa scale as Silymarin is one of it's components.

[Tom Andre F. (ex shinobi)]

<p>

<br />
you'd think an immortal cell line such as HeLa is the golden standard, afterall the goal is to achieve immortality at least on a cellular level.Yes they are testing on CD4/CD8 cells.<br />

<br />
Well it's depend what is this test exactly, i still dont have seen what you mean for this test and no protocol..

Test an activity on CD4 CD8 doesnt make sense since they are pretty immortal already... its probably the most easy cells to act on

The hard way would be to use cells which simply doesn’t express any hTERT activity as opposite to these ones...

Edited by Shinobi, 14 January 2014 - 09:58 AM.

[hav]

I certainly wouldn't want to take anything that scores 100 on that scale. Maybe somewhere in the middle is optimal. All the good and none of the bad

what "bad"? there's never been a study proving that telomerase causes cancer.

I don't disagree with the fact that the only studies done on the subject show that telomerase activation does not cause cancer. Which is my point. They should stop comparing telomerase activation to cancer.

And what does the HeLa scale mean anyway? If something scoring 100 lets a cell live infinitely long, how do you scale against that? What's a 50? Half of infinity? And are HeLa cells really immortal if they always kill their host which kills them too? Obviously only in a petri dish. Using cancer as a standard of measurement seems meaningless, false, and scary, all at the same time.

Howard

[marcobjj]

the scale doesn't represent lifespan, it represents telomerase activation. So 100 doesn't really mean infinity.

[hav]

From your post. HeLa cells are cervical cancer cells. Immortality is only one of their qualities. They are highly contaminating to other cells. They also have non-human dna counts. Not to mention they kill you. Comparing TA65 to the effectiveness of a cancer cell? What were they thinking?

I certainly wouldn't want to take anything that scores 100 on that scale. Maybe somewhere in the middle is optimal. All the good and none of the bad. If only someone actually knows the safe limit.

Btw, I just checked. It's not TA-65 that scored the 6. It was compound C0057684. Which also happens to be toxic. There have also been other recently identified compounds: C0313741 rated a 12. And another one is claimed to score 16. They are all toxic too. As far as I know, their cancer causing ability has not been examined yet... which might earn them a higher score.

As of now, the safe upper limit on the HeLa scale seems to be less than 6. TA65 rates itself a 3.28 on the Hela scale.

Howard

Howard, can you send me some link please or direct full PDF if you own ?

Also take into account the natural VS synthetic ones.. since natural usually.. even fight cancer ! they act different if cancer cell or not.

I've never seen any published research validating the HeLa scale. The non-toxic TA65 and other toxic compounds, as well as the HeLa scores are all from Sierra Sciences. I've added some links above. The TA65 3.28 number used to be on the Sierra Sciences site, and was discussed allot here, particularly in connection with the introduction of Product B from Isagenix whose initial claims cited the TA65 3.28 rating.

Regarding Product B and its rating, here's a excerpt from a John W Anderson patent, who I assume is the same John Anderson who is the co-founder of Isagenix. It references best and worst comparison numbers for different Silimarin samples:

[Silymarin extract 78% concentration spry dried] Three positive replicates at 111.11 μg/mL, with an average hTN of 66.85 (2.5-fold less than C0057684) and a standard deviation of 13.10.
...
[ Silymarin at 80% concentrate using varied extraction method] Two positive replicates at 111.11 μg/mL, with an average hTN of 5.56 (16-fold less than C0057684) and a standard deviation of 15.84.

Note that it doesn't reference the HeLa scale. It compares to C0057684 which is Sierra Sciences' proprietary assay. Note also that no one, including Sierra Sciences, has ever published a peer reviewed study validating the C0057684 assay either. But if you assume TA65 is 3.28 on the HeLa scale, and C0057684 is 6, then spry dried Silimarin would be 6 / 2.5 = 2.4. All in vitro, btw, which is perhaps an even bigger issue if the concentrations used in the assay are impossible to achieve inside the body.

Howard

[hav]

the scale doesn't represent lifespan, it represents telomerase activation. So 100 doesn't really mean infinity.

Sounds like an argument that infinite lifespan and telomerase activation are unrelated. You're probably right.

Howard

[DorianGrey]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silibinin "Silymarin is the first ingredient in several products sold as herbal telomerase activators, though the research demonstrating silymarin's effectiveness in this regard is proprietary and unpublished."

I started taking Siliphos, a highly bioavailable form of milk thistle extract. It has about 100mg "Silibyn". I always thought Silymarin would be one well defined substance, but looking at the Wikipedia entry it seems to be more complex. This Siliphos product is less expensive than Cyclo, so if it has a similar score in telomerase activation it looks like a good alternative, once better data becomes available I'd re-assess.

If you really need to boost telomerase than maybe just take both. But I am not there yet: my telomers are longer than the average for my age and Cyclo works best for a significant number of short telomers. That's also not yet the case with me. Like most people here I have to budget a bit, so I'll stick with moderate amounts of Siliphos on and off. At least this product has is said to have other health benefits which wouldn't hurt (liver, prostate).

[DorianGrey]

the scale doesn't represent lifespan, it represents telomerase activation. So 100 doesn't really mean infinity.

Sounds like an argument that infinite lifespan and telomerase activation are unrelated. You're probably right.

Howard

It's not so hard: you lose at least 50 base pairs per cell division, although it could be 200 or more, so this is a ballpark number. Telomerase has to restore these 50 or sometimes more. So either you go under 50, maintain about 50 before the next division or go over and actually lengthen the telomers. And remember, there are 23 diploid chromosomes, so correct me if I am wrong but that's staggering 92 telomers per cell.

At one point telomers probably don't get longer anymore (there are quite a few specialized proteins and complexes that bind to the telomer loops), or HeLa cells by now would consist 99% of telomers.

You cannot live to infinity if your telomers get critically short. Otherwise, long telomers do not fully protect your mitochondria, the cytoskeleton (AGE), point mutations, some neurons in your dopaminergic system or prevent calcification. So, other mechanisms of aging just become more important.

[marcobjj]

the scale doesn't represent lifespan, it represents telomerase activation. So 100 doesn't really mean infinity.

Sounds like an argument that infinite lifespan and telomerase activation are unrelated. You're probably right.

Howard

lol come on now, why are you being so thick .

Edited by marcobjj, 14 January 2014 - 07:33 PM.

[marcobjj]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silibinin "Silymarin is the first ingredient in several products sold as herbal telomerase activators, though the research demonstrating silymarin's effectiveness in this regard is proprietary and unpublished."

I started taking Siliphos, a highly bioavailable form of milk thistle extract. It has about 100mg "Silibyn". I always thought Silymarin would be one well defined substance, but looking at the Wikipedia entry it seems to be more complex. This Siliphos product is less expensive than Cyclo, so if it has a similar score in telomerase activation it looks like a good alternative, once better data becomes available I'd re-assess.

If you really need to boost telomerase than maybe just take both. But I am not there yet: my telomers are longer than the average for my age and Cyclo works best for a significant number of short telomers. That's also not yet the case with me. Like most people here I have to budget a bit, so I'll stick with moderate amounts of Siliphos on and off. At least this product has is said to have other health benefits which wouldn't hurt (liver, prostate).

I'll stick to Cyclo for now as it's the more thoroughly tested and proven molecule. Though I'm not sure if at 34 years old I'm not wasting money since cyclo supposedly acts on critically short telomeres but doesn't generally elongate > 5kb telomeres.

[marcobjj]

<p>

<br />
you'd think an immortal cell line such as HeLa is the golden standard, afterall the goal is to achieve immortality at least on a cellular level.Yes they are testing on CD4/CD8 cells.<br />

<br />
Well it's depend what is this test exactly, i still dont have seen what you mean for this test and no protocol..

Test an activity on CD4 CD8 doesnt make sense since they are pretty immortal already... its probably the most easy cells to act on

The hard way would be to use cells which simply doesn't express any hTERT activity as opposite to these ones...

CD4 CD8 is used for in vivo tests to measuere telomere length pre and post treatment, not necessarily the level of telomerase activation. it's easier to obtain blood samples than other tissues.

Edited by marcobjj, 14 January 2014 - 08:03 PM.

[marcobjj]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....45570_fig-2.jpg

[hav]

the scale doesn't represent lifespan, it represents telomerase activation. So 100 doesn't really mean infinity.

Sounds like an argument that infinite lifespan and telomerase activation are unrelated. You're probably right.

Howard

It's not so hard: you lose at least 50 base pairs per cell division, although it could be 200 or more, so this is a ballpark number. Telomerase has to restore these 50 or sometimes more. So either you go under 50, maintain about 50 before the next division or go over and actually lengthen the telomers. And remember, there are 23 diploid chromosomes, so correct me if I am wrong but that's staggering 92 telomers per cell.

At one point telomers probably don't get longer anymore (there are quite a few specialized proteins and complexes that bind to the telomer loops), or HeLa cells by now would consist 99% of telomers.

You cannot live to infinity if your telomers get critically short. Otherwise, long telomers do not fully protect your mitochondria, the cytoskeleton (AGE), point mutations, some neurons in your dopaminergic system or prevent calcification. So, other mechanisms of aging just become more important.

You could be on to something but for a different reason. HeLa cells don't have 23 base pairs like human cells. They have somewhere between 38 and 40 pairs. It's possible that HeLa cells express an unusually high amount to telomerase from all their extra pairs.

Regarding the proteins, cancer cells express an inflammatory called cox2. I don't think herbal telomerase activators like silimarin and cyclo do that. Suppressing telomerase or cox2 alone doesn't seem to phase cancer cells. But suppress them both together and it kills them:

Telomerase reverse transcriptase inhibition stimulates cyclooxygenase 2 expression in cancer cells and synergizes with celecoxib to exert anti-cancer effects.

hTERT depletion or celecoxib alone did not affect cancer cell survival, whereas their combination synergistically killed them both in vitro and in vivo.

Might pay to cycle cyclo weekly and throw in some inhibitors in the off week. Perhaps a mix of silymarin with an nsaid. Silymarin is special becasue its a telomerase inhibitor to cancer cells (leukemnia and prostate) while being an activator for white blood cells. Nsaids are cox2 inhibitors. Here's another interesting related study:

The influence of iron loading and iron chelation on the proliferation and telomerase activity of human peripheral blood mononuclear cells.

Pointing out that iron is generally associated with telomerase activation and chelators (ip6?) generally inhibit telomerase. But that silymarin is different with regard to while blood cells.

Howard

Edited by hav, 14 January 2014 - 11:53 PM.

[hav]

the scale doesn't represent lifespan, it represents telomerase activation. So 100 doesn't really mean infinity.

Sounds like an argument that infinite lifespan and telomerase activation are unrelated. You're probably right.

Howard

lol come on now, why are you being so thick .

Because measuring the effect of a non-cancer causing supplement against cancer is so awful it should not go without rebuttal. At least comparing to turritopsis dohrnii would be less repugnant.

Howard

[marcobjj]

awful? HeLa cells have helped research for decades. If the endgame of telomerase activation is to immortalize cells, then why not compare to an immortal cell line.I really don't know where you're coming from.

[hav]

Not only awful but false on almost all counts. Starting with the fact that the HeLa cervical cancer cell line is not immortal. The only reason it is alive now has more to do with artificial life support than any quality it possesses, including telomerase expression. Its continued existence is in spite of its self destructive and environment poisoning evil nature which, without intervention, would had rendered any positive telomerase qualities irrelevant. Yes, HeLa cells would be an awful and perverted poster boy for any health benefit.

Other more admirable cell lines persist on earth which need hardly any artificial life support, flourish in natural environments, are non-destructive to other life around them, and interestingly enough exhibit normal telomerase expression and are much older than the HeLa cell line.

But all these cell lines, including HeLa cells, share one common flaw: they are genetically static. They are not evolving and adapting to life around them, and thus are doomed to becoming genetically obsolete, irrelevant, and extinct. As soon as the cost benefit analysis of continued artificial life support fails them.

I'm referring to garden variety yellow bananas, of course. Musa acuminata which dates back to the 1800's, propagated since then by cutting. But the same analysis extends to cutting any plant or other cell line as well as cloning any animal. All with no telomere involvement at all. And better, longer, and more benign lifespans.

But that is not my definition of immortality. If you do consider HeLa cells and bananas immortal, bananas would be more immortal than HeLa cells. If only because they are older. And better because the only artificial assistance they need is cutting and they don't actively cause their own extinction. But when their outside environment evolves past them, bananas will also be forced into the lab for survival, right next to HeLa cell petri dishes. Which is rapidly approaching for bananas and why I doubt anyone acknowledges that kind of claim to immortality.

I'm still confused on why Sierra Sciences chose HeLa cells as their role model. Maybe they were just trying to get ahead of the whole "telomerase causes cancer" issue in the most provocative way they could think of, even if it was facetious. To generate more discussion. Guess its working, because I feel provoked every time I hear it.

Howard

Edited by hav, 15 January 2014 - 05:39 PM.

[marcobjj]

oh man...... lol

[ColonyCitizen079]

the scale doesn't represent lifespan, it represents telomerase activation. So 100 doesn't really mean infinity.

Sounds like an argument that infinite lifespan and telomerase activation are unrelated. You're probably right.

Howard

lol come on now, why are you being so thick .

Because measuring the effect of a non-cancer causing supplement against cancer is so awful it should not go without rebuttal. At least comparing to turritopsis dohrnii would be less repugnant.

Howard

Not to be the wet-blanket (I'd like to add a few decades too), but are you referring to astragalus when you say, "supplement?" If so, maybe you can help clear something up for me. How is it that no study showing it has caused cancer means it doesn't cause cancer, even if indirectly? Were those studies designed to reveal its cancer causing potential? If not, I don't see why those studies matter.

I think you know where I'm going with this. I could say no studies reveal ingesting indiscriminate amounts of Llama urine is harmful to your health, but it may well be.

Understand, I'm not saying it does cause cancer. I have no idea. So why question if it does? I happened across an article at Life Extension Mag--which may be the one people are referring to--titled "Turning on Immortality: The Debate Over Telomerase Activation." where ex-Geron Corp. founder Michael D. West PhD posits telomerase activation comes at a high risk given 90% of cancers have proclivity for using it to dodge natural tumor suppressors.

Whether he's incentivized to mislead people in this regard, or he has no reason to lie isn't obvious to me. But apparently his theorizing isn't unique. He's a gerontologist, and I'm not, so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Is there some reason I shouldn't?

Edited by Brian Soto, 16 February 2014 - 07:44 PM.

[DorianGrey]

the scale doesn't represent lifespan, it represents telomerase activation. So 100 doesn't really mean infinity.

Sounds like an argument that infinite lifespan and telomerase activation are unrelated. You're probably right.

Howard

lol come on now, why are you being so thick .

Because measuring the effect of a non-cancer causing supplement against cancer is so awful it should not go without rebuttal. At least comparing to turritopsis dohrnii would be less repugnant.

Howard

Not to be the wet-blanket (I'd like to add a few decades too), but are you referring to astragalus when you say, "supplement?" If so, maybe you can help clear something up for me. How is it that no study showing it has caused cancer means it doesn't cause cancer, even if indirectly? Were those studies designed to reveal its cancer causing potential? If not, I don't see why those studies matter.

I think you know where I'm going with this. I could say no studies reveal ingesting indiscriminate amounts of Llama urine is harmful to your health, but it may well be.

Understand, I'm not saying it does cause cancer. I have no idea. So why question if it does? I happened across an article at Life Extension Mag--which may be the one people are referring to--titled "Turning on Immortality: The Debate Over Telomerase Activation." where ex-Geron Corp. founder Michael D. West PhD posits telomerase activation comes at a high risk given 90% of cancers have proclivity for using it to dodge natural tumor suppressors.

Whether he's incentivized to mislead people in this regard, or he has no reason to lie isn't obvious to me. But apparently his theorizing isn't unique. He's a gerontologist, and I'm not, so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Is there some reason I shouldn't?

The current activators are so weak I don't think it does any difference regarding the cancer risk in a healthy individual. And active cancer cells make their own telomerase anyway. So that leaves only the proto-oncogenic cells that matter, and adding about 200bp a year on supplements probably isn't doing too much for these either, considering the huge variance in all cells.
I'd still be cautious with even supplements if you had a history of cancer or indications of early onset (like prostate issues in men).

[hav]

Not to be the wet-blanket (I'd like to add a few decades too), but are you referring to astragalus when you say, "supplement?" If so, maybe you can help clear something up for me. How is it that no study showing it has caused cancer means it doesn't cause cancer, even if indirectly? Were those studies designed to reveal its cancer causing potential? If not, I don't see why those studies matter.

I think you know where I'm going with this. I could say no studies reveal ingesting indiscriminate amounts of Llama urine is harmful to your health, but it may well be.

I was kind of referring to astragalus and its ingredients astragaloside iv and cycloastragenol.

Fwiw, I think you may be right about llama urine. Seems to be studied allot for its antibodies and other content but I couldn't find where anyone has computed its toxicity. Sounds like drinking it for health effects might be speculative.

...I happened across an article at Life Extension Mag--which may be the one people are referring to--titled "Turning on Immortality: The Debate Over Telomerase Activation." where ex-Geron Corp. founder Michael D. West PhD posits telomerase activation comes at a high risk given 90% of cancers have proclivity for using it to dodge natural tumor suppressors.

I think that kind of analysis is exactly were astragalus and telomerase activation fears come from. It speculates a hypothesis that telomerase activation creates immortality, that cancer cells are immortal, and concludes that telomerase activation may cause cancer. Which I believe is wrong on all counts. I think his claim is based based on research that suggests that in vitro application at high concentrations of certain telomerase inhibitors can kill cancer cells. Which kind of turns that research on its head since it doesn't deal with causing cancer but killing cancer. Here's an in vitro study that advocates all of that... keep in mind that the prime author works for Geron who manufacturers the tested drug:

Telomerase Inhibitor Imetelstat (GRN163L) Limits the Lifespan of Human Pancreatic Cancer Cells.

The biggest problem in my mind is that so many in vivo studies of astragalus and its ingredients show that they are a beneficial adjunct to cancer treatment. Here's a meta-study that discusses and cites a bunch of them:

Astragalus-Containing Chinese Herbal Prescriptions and Radiotherapy

On the outside possibility that they are both right, I take my telomerase activators on alternate weeks.

Howard

Edited by hav, 19 February 2014 - 07:47 PM.

[Tom Andre F. (ex shinobi)]

if we have full activation of hTERT, in a cell cycle, after the cells differentiated and divided, what happen to this cell ? Actually we want a cell turnover isnt ??

[Telo]

I don't know if this belongs in the product/retailer discussion but...
Revgenetics has a CoA (Intertek) showing that there is 13 mg cycloastragenol in each capsule (26 mg per recommended daily dose) of Stemcell 100 making it maybe the most affordable way to get your cycloastragenol. 50 or 60 dollar per month for 26 mg /day. I was surprised to see this considering they don't even mention cycloastragenol specifically on the label, it only says astragalus extract . Plus it contains a lot more ingredients. Almost too good to be true.

CoA

http://privatemember...vs-stemcell100/

[hav]

Thanks, Telo. I was mystified as to why they were carrying a product called "Stem Cell 100" that didn't contain any stem cells. Problem with the fact that cycloastragenol is not listed on the label is that there is not the slightest promise from the manufacturer that it will continue to be present in the product. Wonder if they will update their coa periodically for continued explicit assurance. Since Revgenetics is reselling it themselves, it kind of leaves them open to possible liability if the manufacturer quietly drops it and someone else finds out before they do.

Howard

Edited by hav, 19 March 2014 - 08:53 PM.

[GreenPower]

For everyone who wondered what TA-65 really is...today Revgenetics sent out an e-mail which links to TA Sciences application to sell TA-65 in the UK. In the application they must state what's actually in the product.

 

Here's the link to the e-mail from Revgenetics: http://us2.campaign-...2&id=6426b59301

Here's the link to the application: http://acnfp.food.go...cycloastragenol

 

Short summary: It's 8mg Cycloastragenol.

 

At least that accounts for >98% of the contents and at least that's what they will sell in the UK. It probably differs a bit from what they have been selling in the US. I seem to remember some test analysis which stated the US version contained less Cycloastragenol.

 

In the application they recommend users to take a maximum of 0.133mg/kg body weight/day. A 100 kg person should thereby take a maximum of 13.3 mg per day. As a side note I've been taking 20 mg/day in my last regimen. I expect the results from the Canadian lab in maybe a week.

[hav]

I noticed in the pdf of the UK application that there was a chart of 5 other cycloastragenol vendors (item #46, Table X.1).  Terraternal is one of them and the purity of their product is listed as only 67%.  Makes me wonder whether the 10/25 mg totals listed for the Terraternal products are already purity adjusted.  Or do they really contain 6.7mg and 16.75mg?

 

Howard

 

[GreenPower]

I noticed in the pdf of the UK application that there was a chart of 5 other cycloastragenol vendors (item #46, Table X.1).  Terraternal is one of them and the purity of their product is listed as only 67%.  Makes me wonder whether the 10/25 mg totals listed for the Terraternal products are already purity adjusted.  Or do they really contain 6.7mg and 16.75mg?

 

Howard

 

 

The second half of my last regimen I used Terraternals 10mg capsules. The content of the bottles are listed as "10mg Cycloastragenol from standardized Astragalus Membranaceus extract" with the following additional ingridients:

- rice flour

 

The PDF lists the purity of the their product as 67%, but Terraternal themselves lists different values for different batches, http://www.terratern...cycloastragenol. Their first batch is listed as 66,2% which I assume is the value used in the PDF. Then they have a number of different values listed, not only 67%.

 

I therefore assume each capsule contains 10mg Cycloastragenol and then they fill up the capsules with rice flour.

Edited by GreenPower, 17 May 2014 - 11:16 AM.

[smithx]

http://www.terratern...ol/598/148.aspx

 

 

Our cycloastragenol is independently tested for safety and purity (HPLC) by a US lab. Copies of those test results for all of our recent batches of cycloastragenol can be found here. The purity of our current batch is roughly 50%.

The capsules are standardized to make sure you get 25mg or 10mg (depending on the product you buy) of cycloastragenol per capsule. So for example, we put roughly 50mg of the 50% cycloastragenol powder we have into each 25mg capsule..

 

 

 

[hav]

Thanks, guys.  I like the fact that they seem to test every batch, get fresh stock every 4 months or so, and adjust accordingly.  When manufacturers list the same coa forever it makes me wonder.  

 

Although using 98% purity seems better on 1st impression maybe using slightly less extraction effort might have the advantage of replacing a little rice flower filler with other astragalus trace compounds that might have their own beneficial value.

 

Howard

 

[GreenPower]

It's time to publish some interesting results from my latest regimen. I also include non-personalized copies of the telomere results from RepeatDiagnostics.

 

Test run 8 - Cycloastragenol, 20mg + Standardized Astragalus for 5 + 3 months

I took Cykloastragenol (Revgenetics, Terraternal) and Standardized Astragalus Root Extract (Solgar) during two periods of 5 and 3 months respectively, with a two week off-period in between. I used Resveratrol (Revgenetics, micronized, 250 mg) together with training sessions (only). During the last four months I also took Huperzine A and Alpha GPC 300 before going to bed in order to increase brain health.

 

Pretest Period: None

• This Test Run commenced directly after Test Run 7. There was no "off time" between.

 

Period 1: 5 months

• During the first period I used "Astragalus Root Extract (0.5%  glucosides, 70% polysaccharides) 225 mg, Raw Astragalus Root Powder 250  mg)" from Solgar and Cycloastragenol, 5mg from Revgenetics. I took one (1) Astragalus and two (2) Cycloastragenol for a total of 10mg in the morning and the same in the afternoon.
• During this period I also completed several rounds of "Adidas miCoach miCoach 30 MINUTE WORKOUT FOR MEN - Level 5" for a total of 25 training sessions. I used it with 20 minutes cross training and 10 minutes of rowing machine. Then about 25 minutes of basic muscle training (4 sets á 5 reps).
• I practiced LCHF and could measure respectable amounts of ketones most of the time.
• I did NO meditation and used NO Gingko Biloba.

Please note that my Cycloastragenol had passed the “best before date” of 2012-July. I used up all of my old stock which I bought a few years earlier. I checked with Revgenetics and they said "Because with the years it does lose its potency, you should consider using a higher dosage". Which I did, taking 10 mg two times per day, for a total of 20 mg per day. The whole stash had been stored in a cool and dark environment the whole time.

 

During this period I did not work (the rules for parental leave are very good in most European countries) and slept and relaxed a lot. I did not have so much as a simple flu during this period.

 

Off Time between periods: 2 weeks

 

Period 2:  3 months

• During the first period I used "Astragalus Root Extract (0.5%  glucosides, 70% polysaccharides) 225 mg, Raw Astragalus Root Powder 250  mg)" from Solgar and Cycloastragenol, 10mg from Terraternal. I took one (1) Astragalus and two (1) Cycloastragenol in the morning and the same in the afternoon.
• During this period I also completed several rounds of "Adidas miCoach 30 MINUTE WORKOUT FOR MEN - Level 5" for a total of 10 training sessions. I used it with 20 minutes cross training and 10 minutes of rowing machine. Then about 25 minutes of basic muscle training (4 sets á 5 reps). The reason for less training during this period was repetitive cases of some nasty bugs.
• During the last four months I also took Huperzine A (Source Naturals) and Alpha GPC 300 (Jarrow) before going to bed. The first month every evening, then every second or third evening.
• I practiced LCHF and could measure respectable amounts of ketones most of the time.
• I did NO meditation and used NO Gingko Biloba.

 

Please note that the Cycloastragenol provided by Terraternal had NOT expired.

 

My son started preschool and I started working. The pace at work was acceptable the first month, but the two last months meant some measurable stress. Preschool also meant exposure to lots of different strains of flu and a really bad case of the "winter vomiting bug" (Norwalk virus).

 

Results

Test Run 8 meant the following telomere changes from the last test run.

Measurement       MTL(kb)   Difference(%)   Difference(kb)

Tel-Lymphocyte      7,4         7%               0,5

SD-Lymphocytes      0,2

Tel-Granulocytes    7,8         0%               0,0

SD-Granulocytes     0,0

Tel-Naïve T-Cells   7,9         3%               0,2

SD-Naïve T-Cells    0,3

Tel-Memory T-Cells  6,4         5%               0,3

SD-Memory T-Cells   0,1

Tel-B-Cells         8,6         4%               0,3

SD-B-Cells          0,1

Tel-NK Cells        5,1         2%               0,1

SD-NK Cells         0,1

 

MTL = Median Telomere Length

SD = Standard Deviation

Conclusion
Repeat Diagnostics have earlier stated that the fault limits of their tests are within 0.3 kb for lymphocytes, 0.5 kb for granulocytes and the error for the other subpopulations "is expected" to be in the same range, 0.3 - 0.5 kb. This ought to mean I have a verified extension of the telomeres of my lymphocytes. With some margin. The other measured values are more likely to be within the fault limit of the test.

 

A test population of n=1 is not exactly hard scientific evidence, but please take into consideration that this is the more expensive "non-standard version" of the "6-Panel Assay" test, which also includes the measurement of the Standard Deviation. I assume this test collects more gated events than the normal test and ought to have a relatively high degree of certainty.

 

I would therefore say the effect of the regimen used in Test Run 8 was "quite interesting in a positive way".

 

Of course it's not possible to say which part of the regimen was responsible for the positive numbers. I think the most likely suspects are:

• The total removal of stress for half a year.
• The combination of Standardized Astragalus with a quite high dose of Cycloastragenol.
• The combination of LCHF and training.

I suspect the numbers could have been even better if I hadn't got all of these cases of flu and a really nasty case of the winter vomiting bug. Especially the latter ought to have put some considerable strain on the immune system

 

Future tests
Not yet planned.

Edited by caliban, 23 May 2014 - 08:59 PM.
personal information removed on request of poster

[caliban]

At almost 2200 posts, this thread -itself, as indicated ion its title a 'chapter' in an ongoing conversation is becoming to big to be manageable, topical or focused. Thanks to all who made valuable contributions here, the discussion and exploration continues elsewhere on LongeCity.. 

 

For topic cohesion and scientific relevance, please start new topics focusing on the telomere or telomerase- related effects in this sub-forum rather than anywhere else -- even if the theme also involves e.g. 'supplements' or 'medicine' or 'nutrition'.