56 replies to this topic

[niner]

Ok, but there's no such evidence for benfo. I would love to dispute those other points too (at least to some degree), but I'll do it another time.

Yeah, total agreement with you on benfotiamine. I don't use it.

[pycnogenol]

New article on Life Enhancement about Benfotiamine:

http://www.life-enha...ate.asp?id=2146

Lessening AGE damage helps prevent cardiac dysfunction

Benfotiamine Averts Cardiomyopathy

Advanced glycation endproduct (AGE) accumulation and AGE receptor (RAGE) upregulation are implicated in diabetic cardiomyopathy By Will Block

[hormoneman]

Ok, but there's no such evidence for benfo. I would love to dispute those other points too (at least to some degree), but I'll do it another time.

Yeah, total agreement with you on benfotiamine. I don't use it.

An explosion of convincing animal studies further supports benfotiamine's remarkable benefits. Benfotiamine has now been shown to counteract AGE-related toxicity on endothelial cells, (43) to relieve inflammatory and neuropathic (nerve-induced) pain in both diabetic and non-diabetic rats, (44) and to alleviate diabetes-induced oxidative damage to brain tissue. (45) Interestingly, benfotiamine's protective effect on brain tissue is produced by mechanisms that seem to be unrelated to AGE formation, opening the door to even greater benefits in this area!

There is clearly no doubt that benfotiamine has proven itself in laboratory studies, and research is now yielding convincing evidence from human trials as well. Dramatic results are flowing in from top-level researchers around the world, demonstrating that benfotiamine's potent AGE/RAGE inhibition translates directly into measurable benefits for humans.

http://findarticles....n28521561/pg_5/

Ameliorative effect of combination of benfotiamine and fenofibrate in
diabetes-induced vascular endothelial dysfunction and nephropathy in the
rat.
Balakumar P, Chakkarwar VA, Singh M.
Cardiovascular Pharmacology Division, ISF College of Pharmacy, Moga, 142
001, India,.

http://groups.google...cade1898052fbdf

http://www.valleynat...5_-Benefits.pdf

http://www.benfotiamine.org/

[niner]

Does it do anything for healthy, non-diabetic humans, in vivo? I'm 100% unimpressed by in vitro work. We already know it does good things for diabetics. Most of us are not diabetic. The decision to use it or not use it should turn on evidence of benefit in healthy humans vs. likelyhood of harm. Hormoneman, it sounds like you own a benfotiamine company.

[FunkOdyssey]

Dramatic results are flowing in from top-level researchers around the world, demonstrating that benfotiamine's potent AGE/RAGE inhibition translates directly into measurable benefits for humans.

Yeah that is viral-speak, followed by a link to a commercial website selling benfotiamine.

[Mortuorum]

Yeah that is viral-speak, followed by a link to a commercial website selling benfotiamine.
[/quote]

Funk, what are your plans, do you intend to cease consumption of benfotiamine as a result of this controversy (that is if you take it in the first place?)?


Best,


M.

[okok]

Supplements might be generally useless for lengthening Maximum lifespan, but that's a figure of merit that I don't care about. I care about mean lifespan, because that is far more likely to have an impact on my own lifespan. I also don't care about how supplements do or don't affect animals that are perfectly husbanded, because I am not perfectly husbanded. My diet is imperfect and, like Mick Jagger, I got nasty habits. (I take tea at three...) The evidence that certain supplements can improve the health, and thus increase mean lifespan, of typical humans is overwhelming. There's a real danger here of conflating things like vitamin D and Magnesium with the latest whacko herb because they all fall under the broad heading of "supplements".

Does it do anything for healthy, non-diabetic humans, in vivo? I'm 100% unimpressed by in vitro work. We already know it does good things for diabetics. Most of us are not diabetic. The decision to use it or not use it should turn on evidence of benefit in healthy humans vs. likelyhood of harm. Hormoneman, it sounds like you own a benfotiamine company.

This sounds somewhat contradictory. If it is beneficial in diabetics, it might also be in subclinical conditions.
Mean lifespan means your genetic lifespan minus all the deletive expletive happening to you in a lifetime.
Michael seems very quick to bash out on everything but CR. As valid predicative studies are rare, it's up to everyone to form their own opinion and listen to their body.

[Gerald W. Gaston]

Dramatic results are flowing in from top-level researchers around the world, demonstrating that benfotiamine's potent AGE/RAGE inhibition translates directly into measurable benefits for humans.

Yeah that is viral-speak, followed by a link to a commercial website selling benfotiamine.

Well knowing of hormoneman from the LEF board... I would say that 'viral-speak' as you call it was verbiage was from a LEF article... searching... ah there it is:

http://www.lef.org/m...otiamine_01.htm

[niner]

Supplements might be generally useless for lengthening Maximum lifespan, but that's a figure of merit that I don't care about. I care about mean lifespan, because that is far more likely to have an impact on my own lifespan. I also don't care about how supplements do or don't affect animals that are perfectly husbanded, because I am not perfectly husbanded. My diet is imperfect and, like Mick Jagger, I got nasty habits. (I take tea at three...) The evidence that certain supplements can improve the health, and thus increase mean lifespan, of typical humans is overwhelming. There's a real danger here of conflating things like vitamin D and Magnesium with the latest whacko herb because they all fall under the broad heading of "supplements".

Does it do anything for healthy, non-diabetic humans, in vivo? I'm 100% unimpressed by in vitro work. We already know it does good things for diabetics. Most of us are not diabetic. The decision to use it or not use it should turn on evidence of benefit in healthy humans vs. likelyhood of harm. Hormoneman, it sounds like you own a benfotiamine company.

This sounds somewhat contradictory. If it is beneficial in diabetics, it might also be in subclinical conditions.
Mean lifespan means your genetic lifespan minus all the deletive expletive happening to you in a lifetime.
Michael seems very quick to bash out on everything but CR. As valid predicative studies are rare, it's up to everyone to form their own opinion and listen to their body.

It's not contradictory at all. The first quote is about supplements in general, and the obsession with effects on Max LS to the exclusion of all else. The second quote is about benfotiamine in particular, and the kind of evidence that I would need to see before I take it. I don't think it's enough to just say everyone should form their own opinion. They can (and will) do that, but unless they know enough about biochemistry and pharmacology, their opinions stand a good chance of being wrong. Michael holds all interventions to a high standard, perhaps in part to counter the avalanche of hype that surrounds some of them.

[okok]

Supplements might be generally useless for lengthening Maximum lifespan, but that's a figure of merit that I don't care about. I care about mean lifespan, because that is far more likely to have an impact on my own lifespan. I also don't care about how supplements do or don't affect animals that are perfectly husbanded, because I am not perfectly husbanded. My diet is imperfect and, like Mick Jagger, I got nasty habits. (I take tea at three...) The evidence that certain supplements can improve the health, and thus increase mean lifespan, of typical humans is overwhelming. There's a real danger here of conflating things like vitamin D and Magnesium with the latest whacko herb because they all fall under the broad heading of "supplements".

Does it do anything for healthy, non-diabetic humans, in vivo? I'm 100% unimpressed by in vitro work. We already know it does good things for diabetics. Most of us are not diabetic. The decision to use it or not use it should turn on evidence of benefit in healthy humans vs. likelyhood of harm. Hormoneman, it sounds like you own a benfotiamine company.

This sounds somewhat contradictory. If it is beneficial in diabetics, it might also be in subclinical conditions.
Mean lifespan means your genetic lifespan minus all the deletive expletive happening to you in a lifetime.
Michael seems very quick to bash out on everything but CR. As valid predicative studies are rare, it's up to everyone to form their own opinion and listen to their body.

It's not contradictory at all. The first quote is about supplements in general, and the obsession with effects on Max LS to the exclusion of all else. The second quote is about benfotiamine in particular, and the kind of evidence that I would need to see before I take it. I don't think it's enough to just say everyone should form their own opinion. They can (and will) do that, but unless they know enough about biochemistry and pharmacology, their opinions stand a good chance of being wrong. Michael holds all interventions to a high standard, perhaps in part to counter the avalanche of hype that surrounds some of them.

I do value critical discourse, but I sense a murky line between eristic and dialectic (not in your posts). As was stated before, it's also an issue of potential gains and losses. E.g. light-heartedly dismissing the benefits of exercise (see post) is what disturbed me a bit.

[niner]

I do value critical discourse, but I sense a murky line between eristic and dialectic (not in your posts). As was stated before, it's also an issue of potential gains and losses. E.g. light-heartedly dismissing the benefits of exercise (see post) is what disturbed me a bit.

Yes, that happens in a place like this... We try to steer things in the direction of logic and evidence. I think Michael was trying to stay in that mode in the linked post. I wouldn't say he was light-heartedly dismissing exercise, but that he was sticking pretty tightly to the evidence with a single-minded focus on lifespan rather than a broader look at quality of life. I'm really more interested in quality of life than quantity, though I like the idea of quantity as well. I just don't want it for its own sake. The quality has to be there too.

[kismet]

This sounds somewhat contradictory. If it is beneficial in diabetics, it might also be in subclinical conditions.

Why should it? And why should you or any other healthy person suffer from untreated subclinical diabetes in the first place? (pre-diabetes is a serious condition and should be managed IAC) Taking methotrexate or taxol for cancer prevention is not a good idea either, evne though they help cancer patients.

Michael seems very quick to bash out on everything but CR. As valid predicative studies are rare, it's up to everyone to form their own opinion and listen to their body.

That's what I thought before actually reading most of his posts. You couldn't be more mistaken, though. I suggest just take a look at his regimen, titled "pills, pills..." for a reason. And you couldn't be more mistaken about "listening to your body" (sorry if I despise this term, but it's quack speech). We have to listen to science: mechanstic plausibility, in vitro evidence (ok, only sometimes), observational trials, RCTs in differing population but not gut feeling!

A max. increase in life span will be always (or, almost) followed by an increase in quality, but not necessarily the other way round. The decrease in quality of life is a function of intrinsic aging anyway.
Unfortunately he's right about exercise. I also wish he wasn't.

Edited by kismet, 04 September 2009 - 06:09 PM.

[okok]

This sounds somewhat contradictory. If it is beneficial in diabetics, it might also be in subclinical conditions.

Why should it? And why should you or any other healthy person suffer from untreated subclinical diabetes in the first place? (pre-diabetes is a serious condition and should be managed IAC) Taking methotrexate or taxol for cancer prevention is not a good idea either, evne though they help cancer patients.

Michael seems very quick to bash out on everything but CR. As valid predicative studies are rare, it's up to everyone to form their own opinion and listen to their body.

That's what I thought before actually reading most of his posts. You couldn't be more mistaken, though. I suggest just take a look at his regimen, titled "pills, pills..." for a reason. And you couldn't be more mistaken about "listening to your body" (sorry if I despise this term, but it's quack speech). We have to listen to science: mechanstic plausibility, in vitro evidence (ok, only sometimes), observational trials, RCTs in differing population but not gut feeling!

A max. increase in life span will be always (or, almost) followed by an increase in quality, but not necessarily the other way round. The decrease in quality of life is a function of intrinsic aging anyway.
Unfortunately he's right about exercise. I also wish he wasn't.

Hmm, just wanted to get my point across, but as silence is usually interpreted as consent, can't let that slip.
Supporting one's own agenda is often just a matter of picking the right studies or interpreting them accordingly, thus quite void of meaning. So getting to know your supplements (gut feeling - more quack speech?), what's good and bad for you, is very valid.
The 1-2 years michael referred to are old figures, i recall some physician admitting the numbers were far too conservative. (Will post the article if i find it, for what it's worth.)

[kismet]

 Supporting one's own agenda is often just a matter of picking the right studies or interpreting them accordingly, thus quite void of meaning.

Yes, but the evidence to refute someone's agenda is out there. The truth is out there, people just have to look for it and more often than not they fail to refute the evidence which they claim to be biased...

So getting to know your supplements (gut feeling - more quack speech?), what's good and bad for you, is very valid.

You either get to know your supplements through science or you kill yourself. I don't think it matters if you involve gut feeling to make your choice, if you really base your choice on evidence (I think it's just semantics, but, yes, more often than not the term "gut feeling" or some such is abused by quacks and alt.med. supplement pushers). Taking supplements must be based on hard science, while dropping them on gut feeling (e.g. side-effects).

The 1-2 years michael referred to are old figures, i recall some physician admitting the numbers were far too conservative. (Will post the article if i find it, for what it's worth.)

I don't think that is the point at all to be honest. We know that exercise is a great way to 'stay young' compared to everything else we have (which is next to nothing), but it still sucks. And based on the animal evidence it pales in contrast to CR. Although, I am still not sure on the CRONie stance on exercise, I think they do some weight training to keep up BMD, no?

Edited by kismet, 04 September 2009 - 11:31 PM.

[maxwatt]

 Supporting one's own agenda is often just a matter of picking the right studies or interpreting them accordingly, thus quite void of meaning.

Yes, but the evidence to refute someone's agenda is out there. The truth is out there, people just have to look for it and more often than not they fail to refute the evidence which they claim to be biased...

So getting to know your supplements (gut feeling - more quack speech?), what's good and bad for you, is very valid.

You either get to know your supplements through science or you kill yourself. I don't think it matters if you involve gut feeling to make your choice, if you really base your choice on evidence (I think it's just semantics, but, yes, more often than not the term "gut feeling" or some such is abused by quacks and alt.med. supplement pushers). Taking supplements must be based on hard science, while dropping them on gut feeling (e.g. side-effects).

The 1-2 years michael referred to are old figures, i recall some physician admitting the numbers were far too conservative. (Will post the article if i find it, for what it's worth.)

I don't think that is the point at all to be honest. We know that exercise is a great way to 'stay young' compared to everything else we have (which is next to nothing), but it still sucks. And based on the animal evidence it pales in contrast to CR. Although, I am still not sure on the CRONie stance on exercise, I think they do some weight training to keep up BMD, no?

I like exercise. Is something wrong?

I doubt any form of practical CR, or any supplement (dubious) will extend ones life by much more than 5 to 10 years. Exercise might help you get more out of those years, and reduce the chance of early death... but it is unlikely to extend maximal life span.

Edited by maxwatt, 05 September 2009 - 02:39 AM.
spilling and gramer

[triplecrown]

Justed wanted to bump this article to get peoples current take on benfotiamine.

[orbital]

I second that bump as I'm unsure if there's been a rethink about the potential risk v benefit situation here.

[OneScrewLoose]

I take benfo because for some reason it makes me less sensitive to the temperature being slightly too cold or too hot and it makes it a bit easier for me to get up in the morning. No clue why this is.

Edited by OneScrewLoose, 06 July 2011 - 06:15 AM.

[gregcc]

Im considering purchasing benfotiamine for the reduction in AGEs and it was on my shopping cart till i did my risk check on all the items and i found this thread.. so would also be interested in others views..

[poolboy]

I know this is an old discussion, but I thought I would help anyone still thinking that Benfotiamine puts you at risk for runaway cancer based on the 1999 study cited above.

The confusion stems from Benfotiamine's (and thiamine of course) ability to turn on the genes responsible for producing Transketolase -- there are 3 of them: TKT, TKTL1, TKTL2. Only one of these has been shown to be activated in cancer: TKTL1. In cancer, the gene gets mutated so that it constantly produces a high level of Transketolase which helps the cancer cell create as much ribose as it can from glucose, thereby providing an energy source to replicate and spread. So on the surface this seems dangerous until you realize that it doesn't mean anything unless 1.) there is a huge supply of unused glucose in the blood and 2.) the healthy cells aren't using it so that the cancer has an advantage (if every cell has Transketolase turned on, there isn't any advantage given to the cancer because it can't outproduce the healthy cells.)

So a recipe for runaway cancer with TKTL1 turned on would be very high blood sugar (like in a diabetic) and very low thiamine available to the rest of the cells. Raising the thiamine level would likely reduce the cancer's advantage, as would a low carb, low calorie diet. In addition, there are substances that are known to switch off TKTL1 like genistein from beans and soy.

For our purposes of life extension, you should already be practicing a low calorie, low glycemic diet. Adding benfotiame will help turn on all 3 of the genes mentioned above in all cells and keep you processing what low blood sugar you have though a pathway that causes the least number of methylgloxal and AGEs to develop. We want healthy stem cells, long telemeres, accurate macrophages, energetic mitochondria etc, and we want them to have the upper hand over malignant cells.

If you can read more about this here

MUTATIONS IN THE TRANSKETOLASE-LIKE GENE TKTL1
http://www.rohner-ko...abetes etc..pdf

[poolboy]

This study says that high fructose rather than glucose may be to blame


Fructose Induces Transketolase Flux to Promote Pancreatic Cancer Growth

http://cancerres.aac...70/15/6368.full


Carbohydrate metabolism via glycolysis and the tricarboxylic acid cycle is pivotal for cancer growth, and increased refined carbohydrate consumption adversely affects cancer survival. Traditionally, glucose and fructose have been considered as interchangeable monosaccharide substrates that are similarly metabolized, and little attention has been given to sugars other than glucose. However, fructose intake has increased dramatically in recent decades and cellular uptake of glucose and fructose uses distinct transporters. Here, we report that fructose provides an alternative substrate to induce pancreatic cancer cell proliferation. Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different; in comparison with glucose, fructose induces thiamine-dependent transketolase flux and is preferentially metabolized via the nonoxidative pentose phosphate pathway to synthesize nucleic acids and increase uric acid production. These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation. They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth.

[solarfingers]

Benfotiamine nothing but "Snake Oil"

A popular vitamin supplement is being advertised with claims that are demonstrably untrue, as revealed by research published in the open access journal BMC Pharmacology.

Benfotiamine is a synthetic derivative of thiamine (vitamin B1). It is marketed heavily as a dietary supplement using a selection of unsubstantiated, 'not-quite-medical' claims that tend to characterize this field. A large part of this campaign has been built around the belief that benfotiamine is lipid-soluble and, therefore, more physiologically active. Scientific research led by Dr Lucien Bettendorff of the Center for Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology at the University of Liège, Belgium, has entirely disproved these claims.
A severe deficiency of thiamine is known to cause weight loss, emotional disturbances, impaired sensory perception, weakness and pain in the limbs, and periods of irregular heart rate. Deficiencies can occur as a result of alcoholism or malnutrition. As thiamine itself is very poorly absorbed by the body, it must be taken in as various precursor forms. This research shows that benfotiamine may not be as effective in this regard as has been claimed, in particular concerning its ability to raise effective thiamine levels in the central nervous system.

According to Bettendorff, "We suspect that those companies selling benfotiamine have poisoned much of the recent literature in an attempt to bestow it with properties that it does not have". Benfotiamine has been previously shown to prevent several diabetic complications in experimental animal models. The researchers carried out experiments in mice in which benfotiamine was administered using several different techniques and the resulting levels of thiamine were measured in various parts of the body. Contrary to other claims about its solubility, the results show that benfotiamine is only sparingly soluble in water under physiological conditions and cannot be dissolved in octanol or oils.

Due to the wide-reaching nature of the false claims about this supplement, it was important to the authors that their work be published in BMC Pharmacology as it is an open access journal that makes research freely available.

[Aronte]

Benfotiamine it's not "Snake oil"! Like every vitamin better.... Like everything you take what you need !
I'm taking Benfotiamine from more than 12 year BUT I'm diabetic type 1 and I know that with Benfotiamine I managed to cure a beginning of polyneuropathy
I managed to cure hypertension and after 30 years of illness I am still in good health despite a glycated hemoglobin always between 7 and 8.
But I think that isn't useful for someone who is in good health.
P.S. Sorry for my English.

[solarfingers]

Aronte,

I'm actually interested in taking Benfotiamine... I see that it poses little to no risk of cancer from what I have read. I provided the article playing the devil's advocate. It's really easy to want something to be so true that we ignore anything that might appose our assumptions. I have been researching a number of AGE-breakers and this is one that seems to be viable. I love to hear reports like yours. Your English is fine.

Thanks...

[trying2survive]

"the results show that benfotiamine is only sparingly soluble in water"
anybody know if this is true?

[Forever21]

Glad I found this. I will be ceasing taking:

 

Benfotiamine

 

If anyone has anything new about this topic, please share.

[Dorian Grey]

When pondering the risk/reward of benfotiamine, I can't help but think, why accept any risk if traditional thiamine supplements might give the reward without the risk.  

 

From what I've read, the problem with simple thiamine supplementation is that no mater how much you take, there is never more than one or two milligrams absorbed in a given dose.  I'm rather fond of alcohol, and also consume quite a lot of antithiamine / thiaminase factors like polyphenols in tea & coffee.  

 

My work-around for this dilemma is to take thiamine several times per day with meals that do not include antithiamine / thiaminase factors.  Simple thiamine tablets typically contain 100mg of thiamine.  When I tried these, I found they gave me an unusual body odor if I took this dose more than once a day.  I cut the 100mg tabs into quarters, & take a quarter tab several times per day. You can get a pill cutter at any pharmacy (don't try this with a knife!)

 

As I take supplements with each meal, this presented no additional effort, other than cutting the tabs into quarters every morning, and avoiding taking them with meals when I will be consuming coffee or tea.  Alcohol is not antithiamine/thiaminase, but simply increases physiological need/utilization, so taking thiamine with dinner/alcohol is not a problem, & helps prevent depletion from alcohol.  

 

I feel I'm getting the best of both worlds, bumping thiamine slightly several times per day, without consuming the questionably hazardous form.  

Edited by Dorian Grey, 31 March 2019 - 08:01 AM.