45 replies to this topic

[HOTCells]

This has probably been asked a million times, but since opinions change I would like some current opinions. Anyone willing to list what they think are the 5 most important oral supplements that are not commonly found in our diet that a healthy person who is 30 years old might be interested in taking for life extension and younger skin i.e. What specific kind of Astragalus, DMAE etc. Thanks.

Edited by HOTCells, 18 February 2009 - 11:03 PM.

[hamishm00]

Assuming your diet and lifestyle is what would be average by western standards I would say:

Alcar (and perhaps Alcar Arginate)
R-Alpha Lipoic Acid
Resveratrol
Vitamin C
Vitamin D3

I would also also like to add Melatonin, CoQ10 and Fish Oil to the list, but you asked for 5, so there they are.

[JLL]

ALCAR and R-ALA do look promising, but then there's that one study that has me worried about the long-term effects of ALA (the one where it was combined with CR). On the other hand, if I understand correctly, taking ALCAR by itself may not be a good idea either, since it increases oxidative stress in mitochondria (is this correct?).

So my list would maybe be:

Vitamin D3
EPA + DHA
Resveratrol
Melatonin
Quercetin

[nowayout]

On the other hand, if I understand correctly, taking ALCAR by itself may not be a good idea either, since it increases oxidative stress in mitochondria (is this correct?).

This was initially thought to be the case but the oxidative stress was found to be a side effect of ALCAR overdosing according to dose-ranging results contained in the following article:

Delaying Brain Mitochondrial Decay and
Aging with Mitochondrial Antioxidants and
Metabolites
JIANKANG LIU, HANI ATAMNA, HIROHIKO KURATSUNE,
AND BRUCE N. AMES

from the article:

A previous study showed that feeding old rats ALCAR converted the mitochondria
of liver to a more youthful state, both structurally and functionally, and increased
ambulatory activity in the old rats, but caused an increase in oxidants.22 The
increased oxidants have now been found to be a side effect of the very high dose
used. We carried out a dose-response study on the effects of lower doses of ALCAR
on rat brain function, mitochondrial morphological change, and oxidative stress in
old rats.93 ALCAR was administered at 0.15%, 0.5%, and 1.5% in drinking water
for 4 weeks. We found that there was an age-related decrease in carnitine levels in
the brain and plasma (TABLE 1), with an age-related increase in the liver. The increased
level of carnitines in liver may suggest an impaired net transport of carnitine
from the liver to the blood in old animals, because there is an age-dependent deLIU
et al.: MITOCHONDRIAL ANTIOXIDANTS AND METABOLITES 147
crease in the plasma. All the doses of ALCAR (4 weeks) showed significantly increased
levels of carnitine, dependent on dose, in the brain and plasma, without
apparent changes in the liver. The high dose (1.5%) for a shorter term (2 weeks) also
seems effective in elevating the carnitine levels in the brain and plasma. Administration
of carnitine, as well as ALCAR, also effectively elevated the carnitine levels in
the brain and plasma.93, 131
The lower concentrations of ALCAR (0.15% and especially 0.5%) ameliorated
the age-associated decline in ambulatory activity (TABLE 2) and mitochondrial cristae
loss in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus (FIG. 12) more effectively than the
1.5% dose. The lower doses had no effect on protein oxidation, in contrast to the
1.5% dose, which caused an increase in protein carbonyls in the brain. Furthermore,
lower doses (0.15%) also reduced the age-dependent increase in malondialdehyde,
an end product of lipid peroxidation, more effectively than the 1.5% dose (data not
shown). These results suggest (1) that oxidative stress in the brain, a side effect, only
occurs at very high dose of ALCAR administration to old rats, and (2) that a lower
dose of ALCAR administered to old rats can improve brain function by partially reversing
the age-associated mitochondrial decay, by repairing mitochondrial structure,
and by reducing oxidative stress.93,120,121,126,129

Edited by andre, 19 February 2009 - 11:21 AM.

[chabbo]

On the other hand, if I understand correctly, taking ALCAR by itself may not be a good idea either, since it increases oxidative stress in mitochondria (is this correct?).

This was initially thought to be the case but the oxidative stress was found to be a side effect of ALCAR overdosing according to dose-ranging results contained in the following article:

Delaying Brain Mitochondrial Decay and
Aging with Mitochondrial Antioxidants and
Metabolites
JIANKANG LIU, HANI ATAMNA, HIROHIKO KURATSUNE,
AND BRUCE N. AMES

from the article:

A previous study showed that feeding old rats ALCAR converted the mitochondria
of liver to a more youthful state, both structurally and functionally, and increased
ambulatory activity in the old rats, but caused an increase in oxidants.22 The
increased oxidants have now been found to be a side effect of the very high dose
used. We carried out a dose-response study on the effects of lower doses of ALCAR
on rat brain function, mitochondrial morphological change, and oxidative stress in
old rats.93 ALCAR was administered at 0.15%, 0.5%, and 1.5% in drinking water
for 4 weeks. We found that there was an age-related decrease in carnitine levels in
the brain and plasma (TABLE 1), with an age-related increase in the liver. The increased
level of carnitines in liver may suggest an impaired net transport of carnitine
from the liver to the blood in old animals, because there is an age-dependent deLIU
et al.: MITOCHONDRIAL ANTIOXIDANTS AND METABOLITES 147
crease in the plasma. All the doses of ALCAR (4 weeks) showed significantly increased
levels of carnitine, dependent on dose, in the brain and plasma, without
apparent changes in the liver. The high dose (1.5%) for a shorter term (2 weeks) also
seems effective in elevating the carnitine levels in the brain and plasma. Administration
of carnitine, as well as ALCAR, also effectively elevated the carnitine levels in
the brain and plasma.93, 131
The lower concentrations of ALCAR (0.15% and especially 0.5%) ameliorated
the age-associated decline in ambulatory activity (TABLE 2) and mitochondrial cristae
loss in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus (FIG. 12) more effectively than the
1.5% dose. The lower doses had no effect on protein oxidation, in contrast to the
1.5% dose, which caused an increase in protein carbonyls in the brain. Furthermore,
lower doses (0.15%) also reduced the age-dependent increase in malondialdehyde,
an end product of lipid peroxidation, more effectively than the 1.5% dose (data not
shown). These results suggest (1) that oxidative stress in the brain, a side effect, only
occurs at very high dose of ALCAR administration to old rats, and (2) that a lower
dose of ALCAR administered to old rats can improve brain function by partially reversing
the age-associated mitochondrial decay, by repairing mitochondrial structure,
and by reducing oxidative stress.93,120,121,126,129

Any idea what would constitute a very high dose of ALCAR and a low dose for our purposes?

TIA

[zawy]

My guess would be:

Vitamin C (4 g/d in fruit juice, so there's no pill)
B-100 complex
Vitamin D3/Vitamin A (2,000 IU D3 and 30,000 IU A)
EPA + DHA (2 g/d)
Selenium/Vitamin E (200 mcg/800 IU)

Edited by zawy, 19 February 2009 - 03:06 PM.

[nowayout]

On the other hand, if I understand correctly, taking ALCAR by itself may not be a good idea either, since it increases oxidative stress in mitochondria (is this correct?).

This was initially thought to be the case but the oxidative stress was found to be a side effect of ALCAR overdosing according to dose-ranging results contained in the following article:

Delaying Brain Mitochondrial Decay and
Aging with Mitochondrial Antioxidants and
Metabolites
JIANKANG LIU, HANI ATAMNA, HIROHIKO KURATSUNE,
AND BRUCE N. AMES

from the article:

A previous study showed that feeding old rats ALCAR converted the mitochondria
of liver to a more youthful state, both structurally and functionally, and increased
ambulatory activity in the old rats, but caused an increase in oxidants.22 The
increased oxidants have now been found to be a side effect of the very high dose
used. We carried out a dose-response study on the effects of lower doses of ALCAR
on rat brain function, mitochondrial morphological change, and oxidative stress in
old rats.93 ALCAR was administered at 0.15%, 0.5%, and 1.5% in drinking water
for 4 weeks. We found that there was an age-related decrease in carnitine levels in
the brain and plasma (TABLE 1), with an age-related increase in the liver. The increased
level of carnitines in liver may suggest an impaired net transport of carnitine
from the liver to the blood in old animals, because there is an age-dependent deLIU
et al.: MITOCHONDRIAL ANTIOXIDANTS AND METABOLITES 147
crease in the plasma. All the doses of ALCAR (4 weeks) showed significantly increased
levels of carnitine, dependent on dose, in the brain and plasma, without
apparent changes in the liver. The high dose (1.5%) for a shorter term (2 weeks) also
seems effective in elevating the carnitine levels in the brain and plasma. Administration
of carnitine, as well as ALCAR, also effectively elevated the carnitine levels in
the brain and plasma.93, 131
The lower concentrations of ALCAR (0.15% and especially 0.5%) ameliorated
the age-associated decline in ambulatory activity (TABLE 2) and mitochondrial cristae
loss in the dentate gyrus of the hippocampus (FIG. 12) more effectively than the
1.5% dose. The lower doses had no effect on protein oxidation, in contrast to the
1.5% dose, which caused an increase in protein carbonyls in the brain. Furthermore,
lower doses (0.15%) also reduced the age-dependent increase in malondialdehyde,
an end product of lipid peroxidation, more effectively than the 1.5% dose (data not
shown). These results suggest (1) that oxidative stress in the brain, a side effect, only
occurs at very high dose of ALCAR administration to old rats, and (2) that a lower
dose of ALCAR administered to old rats can improve brain function by partially reversing
the age-associated mitochondrial decay, by repairing mitochondrial structure,
and by reducing oxidative stress.93,120,121,126,129

Any idea what would constitute a very high dose of ALCAR and a low dose for our purposes?

TIA

Not really. I tried to analyze this question in the post

http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=26055&hl=

I think what is an overdose will probably depend on age, activity and weight. For example, I think it is likely that what counts as an overdose should be adjusted downward for younger people, so for example at age 20 it is possible that any dose might count as an overdose. But in the absence of human dose ranging studies it is impossible to be sure.

Edited by andre, 19 February 2009 - 04:29 PM.

[VespeneGas]

5? that's kind of tough. If you are counting vitamins/EFAs on the list, I would say:

vitamin D3
Vitamin K2
Fish Oil
Resveratrol
Astragaloside IV (or whatever its successor turns out to be)

If you leave vitamins/EFAs off the list (everyone should be taking them, not just life extensionists) then:

Resveratrol
Astragaloside IV
Methylene Blue
Quercetin
Melatonin

[StrangeAeons]

It's a common enough mistake for a n00b to post threads that are unnecessary, so I'm just going to let you know that you should try searching for this kind of thing before you post. Also asking for 5 seems kind of arbitrary; you should ask which supplements are higher priority, have the most research, or the best risk/cost:benefit ratios.
DukeNukem is one of our most prominent members and has done more than his fair share of homework on life extension. I would start with this thread for top supplements. The C, D3, Niacin, Magnesium, Melatonin, and Green Tea are all very cheap and a good place to start. EPA/DHA is probably the best known and most researched supplement, and I would invest in a good brand. Good cocoa and coconut oil are (expensive) things I have yet to try, but as these also constitute part of a diet they have a more profound and immediate impact on health. Good resveratrol is more expensive, and I would recommend you research this more thoroughly before starting; also don't skimp on it, as purity is important.

[ajnast4r]

Bad list is bad

My guess would be:

Vitamin C (4 g/d in fruit juice, so there's no pill)
B-100 complex
Vitamin D3/Vitamin A (2,000 IU D3 and 30,000 IU A)
EPA + DHA (2 g/d)
Selenium/Vitamin E (200 mcg/800 IU)

[StrangeAeons]

Bad list is bad

My guess would be:

Vitamin C (4 g/d in fruit juice, so there's no pill)
B-100 complex
Vitamin D3/Vitamin A (2,000 IU D3 and 30,000 IU A)
EPA + DHA (2 g/d)
Selenium/Vitamin E (200 mcg/800 IU)

Indeed, and to elaborate:

• there's no data supporting doses that high of vitamin C, and likewise you should avoid that much fruit juice because of the sugars.
• D3 also needs to be balanced with a vitamin K complex, and that high a dose of vitamin A is iffy. You should have mixed retinols, like in Ortho Core.
• 2g/day of Omega 3 is pushing the limit, according to Duke. My daily intake of EPA/DHA is 1g, which should be plenty.
• Make sure you get mixed tocopherols when you're taking vitamin E; high doses of A and E without being counterbalanced and without taking mixed covitamers actually appears to elevate all-cause mortality.

[VespeneGas]

Bad list is bad

My guess would be:

Vitamin C (4 g/d in fruit juice, so there's no pill)
B-100 complex
Vitamin D3/Vitamin A (2,000 IU D3 and 30,000 IU A)
EPA + DHA (2 g/d)
Selenium/Vitamin E (200 mcg/800 IU)

God Ajnast4r, I laughed for like a minute.

Seriously, though, zawy, 4g of C per day from fruit juice? That would land you in a fructose-induced coma.

[HOTCells]

[quote name='PetaKiaRose' date='19-Feb 2009, 03:28 PM' post='301573']
It's a common enough mistake for a n00b to post threads that are unnecessary, so I'm just going to let you know that you should try searching for this kind of thing before you post. Also asking for 5 seems kind of arbitrary; you should ask which supplements are higher priority, have the most research, or the best risk/cost:benefit ratios.]

It's also common for miserable people who sit at home all day on their computers to use the phrase "n00b" I would much rather ask this question again and again, and again, versus relying on old threads from 2008 that were not really specific to age. As we know opinions/studies/new drugs/supplements are constantly changing. BTW, thanks for your info and for the link to DukeNukem's super star list.. Not so sure about cocoa.. I get too addicted to that stuff.

[HOTCells]

Bad list is bad

My guess would be:

Vitamin C (4 g/d in fruit juice, so there's no pill)
B-100 complex
Vitamin D3/Vitamin A (2,000 IU D3 and 30,000 IU A)
EPA + DHA (2 g/d)
Selenium/Vitamin E (200 mcg/800 IU)

Indeed, and to elaborate:

• there's no data supporting doses that high of vitamin C, and likewise you should avoid that much fruit juice because of the sugars.
• D3 also needs to be balanced with a vitamin K complex, and that high a dose of vitamin A is iffy. You should have mixed retinols, like in Ortho Core.
• 2g/day of Omega 3 is pushing the limit, according to Duke. My daily intake of EPA/DHA is 1g, which should be plenty.
• Make sure you get mixed tocopherols when you're taking vitamin E; high doses of A and E without being counterbalanced and without taking mixed covitamers actually appears to elevate all-cause mortality.

For about a year I took about 20 grams of Omega 3 (70% EPA 30% DHA) per day (about 30 grams of fish oil total). It really helped with depression, made me see better (I have no clue why) and made my skin feel great (I have rosacea and it helped enormously). My liver panel also was also normal, which is the first time it had been in the normal range since I was a kid. I now take 2 grams-3 grams of EPA/DHA due to the fact that I'm in school for the semester and can't afford that kind of intake. But when I go on summer break I want to go back to that 20 grams..

Edited by HOTCells, 19 February 2009 - 08:42 PM.

[sdxl]

Vitamin C (4 g/d in fruit juice, so there's no pill)

What about a powder? If it solely comes from orange juice, you would need about 13L if my calculation is correct. Not healthy, practical or economical.

You should have mixed retinols, like in Ortho Core.

As far as I know there is no such thing. There is retinol and its esters. I'm all for mixed carotenoids, if that's what you mean.

[steelsky]

Damn, it's a hard list to make. Top 10 would have been much easier.

Here's 5:

Polyphenols (take your pick... I pick catechins and anthocyanidines)
- Green tea / grapeseed / pine bark (very popular indeed, containing plenty of the above)
- Resveratrol (still packing a punch regarding research and evidence. Could be a much ado about nothing in the end, though)
EFA (no brainer... no pun intended. Also keeps your pipes clean and your cells and organs in good working order)
ALA + ALCAR (a combo which seems like the strongest candidate for promoting longevity. Resveratrol might be more dramatically effective, but this combo is much more certain and evidence supported)
Phytosterols (some are more potent than others)
S.O.D (not just because of the cool name "super oxide dismutase")

If venturing to 10:

Vitamin C, D, E and K (each has its strengths)
Selenium (the best mineral for LE. To be taken with E from above)
CoQ10 (an obvious choice. This guy's a fighter!)
Spirulina/Chlorella (taking in enough amounts can replace other items in the list, as it contains plenty of some)
Clean alkaline water, and a lot of it

Promising but questionable (5):
Astragalus (choose your favorite extract)
Carnosine
Ecklonia Cava (one big question mark, but a glowing one)
Probiotic (good for you anyway, but not certain it's an LE certified class)
Ashwagandha (although I'm not sure if I've even seen it related to longevity factors, I just wanted to get to 5 items, and to match Astragalus. At the very least it reduces stress, which is good for general health)

Oh, and I wouldn't dismiss the B vitamins quite yet, even though recent studies bash them. There is still much evidence about their ability to extend life-span.

Edited by steelsky, 20 February 2009 - 12:58 AM.

[zawy]

Bad list is bad

My guess would be:

Vitamin C (4 g/d in fruit juice, so there's no pill)
B-100 complex
Vitamin D3/Vitamin A (2,000 IU D3 and 30,000 IU A)
EPA + DHA (2 g/d)
Selenium/Vitamin E (200 mcg/800 IU)

Indeed, and to elaborate:

• there's no data supporting doses that high of vitamin C, and likewise you should avoid that much fruit juice because of the sugars.
• D3 also needs to be balanced with a vitamin K complex, and that high a dose of vitamin A is iffy. You should have mixed retinols, like in Ortho Core.
• 2g/day of Omega 3 is pushing the limit, according to Duke. My daily intake of EPA/DHA is 1g, which should be plenty.
• Make sure you get mixed tocopherols when you're taking vitamin E; high doses of A and E without being counterbalanced and without taking mixed covitamers actually appears to elevate all-cause mortality.

1) there's lots of data support 4 g/d of vitamin C. You just need to take the totality of the research into consideration and use common sense. For example, primates in zoos need to get at least 2 g/d. Of course by "in juice" i meant powder form, preferably mixed magnesium and calcium ascorbates. I prefer 1/4 juice to 3/4 water.
2) D3 doesn't need K to be "balanced" and 5,000 IU/d is probably better. I mean, if the choice D3 with K or no D2 or D3 at all, then it's bad advice. 30,000 IU A is not iffy. Yes, mixed retinols might be better.
3) by 2 g/d i meant the total oils as directed on the typical bottle of fish oil supplement
4) yes, OK, maybe 800 IU of plain E without anything else might not be good, but I haven't looked in detail at that new research that seems to contradict the past 30 years of research.

Edited by zawy, 10 May 2009 - 03:20 PM.

[tunt01]

but then there's that one study that has me worried about the long-term effects of ALA (the one where it was combined with CR).

what study is this?

[kismet]

1) there's lots of data support 4 g/d of vitamin C. You just need to take the totality of the research into consideration and use common sense. For example, primates in zoos need to get at least 2 g/d. Of course by "in juice" i meant powder form, preferably mixed magnesium and calcium ascorbates. I prefer 1/4 juice to 3/4 water.

But primates are quite different from humans, aren't they?

4) yes, OK, maybe 800 IU of plain E without anything else might not be good, but I haven't looked in detail at that new research that seems to contradict the past 30 years of research.

Really, there's no contradiction. There never were any large scale studies showing an overall benefit of tocopherol. Recent evidence suggests that it is worthless at best and slightly detrimental at worst (depending on the model used). Maybe there's sensible speculation to the contrary (and only re. mixed *ols), but so far I've not even heard the rationale behind such speculation.

You may not need vitamin K to balance D, but it's surely benefical as they're synergistic (at certain doses).

[GoodFellas]

My list:

Reservatrol
Vit-D3
Quercetin
ALCAR
ALA

Other excellent ones: Vit C, LEF mix, Omega-3

[Dmitri]

1. Vitamin D3 - promotes immune, bone and joint health and protects against autoimmune and chronic diseases.
2. Vitamin K2 - promotes bone, cardiovascular (heart, arteries, veins) and neuron health. It also prevents calcification which can result from too much D3
3. R-Lipoic Acid - It's the form the body uses, helps recycle Vitamin C and E and it appears to protect Mitochondria even reversing damage in aged rats
4. Green Tea
5. Quercetin - powerful flavonoid, has anti-inflammatory and anti-histamine benefits

The study JLL mentioned about ALA reducing life span used Alpha Lipoic Acid (ALA) not R-Lipoic Acid. ALA is 50% synthetic and 50% natural RLA, though the synthetic portion is believed by some to reduce the benefits of natural RLA.

[zawy]

But primates are quite different from humans, aren't they?

Yes, which is why I prefer to take at least 4,000 mg/day instead of 2,500 mg/day. Below 2,500 mg/day is when adverse effects are seen. It's a lot easier to study the effects in primates than in longer-lived humans. I think it will be awhile before we see good studies on vitamin C at 4,000 mg/day. 2,600 mg/day is the minimum amount recommended by Linus Pauling 20 years ago. His max as potentially having benefit for some in the general population was 10,000 mg/day but he preferred to take 18,000 mg/day into his 90's. Some will say we have new information, but really most of the "new" information is wrong-headed. Like the Levine study that used twisted reasoning to conclude 200 mg/day is max possible benefit, that Pauling had specifically addressed 20 years earlier and yet Levine was saying "this is new info Pauling didn't have." It made national headlines. Levine should have first become aware of the existing literature.

Another example of the widely publicized anti-echinacea study from several years ago. They waited until patients had 3 symptoms before they were allowed to take it and concluded that it had no benefit. Well of course if you wait that long, you're already fully involved and nothing but Zicam will help. Those who took it had a 50% reduction in subsequent colds, but that was not considered important enough to relay in the media.

There never were any large scale studies showing an overall benefit of tocopherol. Recent evidence suggests that it is worthless at best and slightly detrimental at worst (depending on the model used).

Vitamin E was basically the first supplement strongly supported by someone, the shute brothers starting in the 1950s. Then came vitamin C. My bias in favor for vit E comes from Science News of the early 1990's. Every week they had a new positive study on it. I haven't looked into it recently, but I gave two examples out of many where the conclusion is just the opposite of the abstract if you carefully read the study. Now compare vitamin C and vitamin E to resveratrol. What studies do we have for humans ingesting resveratrol?

Now compare "new information" with what Linus Pauling published 23 years ago, probably recommeding 30+ years ago:

Don't smoke
Don't eat sugar, suggested paleolithic diet (he probably started the interest in that area)
moderate exercise
alcohol in moderate quantities appears to be good for you
avoid stress
7-8 hours sleep
get plenty of water
fruits and vegetables
eggs and meats are good food, don't pay attention to "cholesterol" in eggs
Vit C 6,000 to 18,000 mg/day in divided doses
vit D 800 IU (you can't hardly find a source at the time saying 400 IU was good)
vit E 400 to 1600 IU
vit A 25,000
vit B complex approx 50 to 100 (a rough summary of his numbers). This is probably the original source of B-50 and B-100 complexes.
A mineral supplement (minor quantities by modern standards for calcium, magnesium, and selenium. Better for zinc 15 mg, copper 1 mg, mang, moly, iodine)

He cited references that showed sugar had a higher correlation with heart disease than fat in different societies and in males subjected to fructose. These were the days when people were saying avoid ANY type of fat to reduce cholesterol. The sugar-heart disease correlation is still strong today based on country-by-country work I did with online databases.

By following these measures he expected average lifespan would increase 25 to 35 years and that someday someone might reach 150.

My point is that it took 10 to 20 years for the most knowledgeable people to get to Pauling's level concerning these things and I need to see some good references before I stop thinking 30,000 IU A and 800 IU E are good. He missed the boat in recommending vit C too much for colds (i have lots of personal experience with that) and not knowing 200 mcg selenium prevents 50% of cancer incidence, although this could be connected with vit E recycling which he has covered. This is not to say his specific info on vit C and colds was wrong: he talked about 1 g/hour reducing colds by only 25% to 50%. I agree with the 25%, and I can keep my nose completely dry during a cold, but just the effort of taking that much is hardly worth it. My experience is that it helps with symptoms due to its strong anti-histamine activity but does not seem to decrease duration. Vit D is much better at prevention and massive zicam pills and gel is a miracle for symptoms and duration (my colds last 6 to 12 hours). I take echinacea too, but I can't "measure" the benefit like i can with vit D and zicam.

The book I'm talking about is "How to Live Longer and Feel Better" published in 1986. I still haven't seen a better introduction to health and have found very few errors (too little selenium and vit D, and missing a few new things). His lowest recommended vitamin C in the book could be quoted as 6,000 mg, 2,600 mg, or 1,000 mg depending on which part you quote. He only specifically explained why 2,600 mg would be the lowest for the majority.

Edited by zawy, 13 May 2009 - 11:55 AM.

[timziums88]

I'm loving all this talk about resveratrol benefits and how it is becoming more mainstream. I have been researching this amazing supplement for awhile, and just recently decided to start publishing my thoughts.

The only thing that concerns me is that the studies are still young in contrast to the other supplements that have been mainstream for years. Do you truly think it's going to be the next best anti-aging supplement?

Edit: Removed link to commercial site. -moderator

Edited by niner, 14 May 2009 - 02:43 AM.

[Dmitri]

But primates are quite different from humans, aren't they?

Yes, which is why I prefer to take at least 4,000 mg/day instead of 2,500 mg/day. Below 2,500 mg/day is when adverse effects are seen. It's a lot easier to study the effects in primates than in longer-lived humans. I think it will be awhile before we see good studies on vitamin C at 4,000 mg/day. 2,600 mg/day is the minimum amount recommended by Linus Pauling 20 years ago. His max as potentially having benefit for some in the general population was 10,000 mg/day but he preferred to take 18,000 mg/day into his 90's. Some will say we have new information, but really most of the "new" information is wrong-headed. Like the Levine study that used twisted reasoning to conclude 200 mg/day is max possible benefit, that Pauling had specifically addressed 20 years earlier and yet Levine was saying "this is new info Pauling didn't have." It made national headlines. Levine should have first become aware of the existing literature.

Another example of the widely publicized anti-echinacea study from several years ago. They waited until patients had 3 symptoms before they were allowed to take it and concluded that it had no benefit. Well of course if you wait that long, you're already fully involved and nothing but Zicam will help. Those who took it had a 50% reduction in subsequent colds, but that was not considered important enough to relay in the media.

There never were any large scale studies showing an overall benefit of tocopherol. Recent evidence suggests that it is worthless at best and slightly detrimental at worst (depending on the model used).

Vitamin E was basically the first supplement strongly supported by someone, the shute brothers starting in the 1950s. Then came vitamin C. My bias in favor for vit E comes from Science News of the early 1990's. Every week they had a new positive study on it. I haven't looked into it recently, but I gave two examples out of many where the conclusion is just the opposite of the abstract if you carefully read the study. Now compare vitamin C and vitamin E to resveratrol. What studies do we have for humans ingesting resveratrol?

Now compare "new information" with what Linus Pauling published 23 years ago, probably recommeding 30+ years ago:

Don't smoke
Don't eat sugar, suggested paleolithic diet (he probably started the interest in that area)
moderate exercise
alcohol in moderate quantities appears to be good for you
avoid stress
7-8 hours sleep
get plenty of water
fruits and vegetables
eggs and meats are good food, don't pay attention to "cholesterol" in eggs
Vit C 6,000 to 18,000 mg/day in divided doses
vit D 800 IU (you can't hardly find a source at the time saying 400 IU was good)
vit E 400 to 1600 IU
vit A 25,000
vit B complex approx 50 to 100 (a rough summary of his numbers). This is probably the original source of B-50 and B-100 complexes.
A mineral supplement (minor quantities by modern standards for calcium, magnesium, and selenium. Better for zinc 15 mg, copper 1 mg, mang, moly, iodine)

He cited references that showed sugar had a higher correlation with heart disease than fat in different societies and in males subjected to fructose. These were the days when people were saying avoid ANY type of fat to reduce cholesterol. The sugar-heart disease correlation is still strong today based on country-by-country work I did with online databases.

By following these measures he expected average lifespan would increase 25 to 35 years and that someday someone might reach 150.

My point is that it took 10 to 20 years for the most knowledgeable people to get to Pauling's level concerning these things and I need to see some good references before I stop thinking 30,000 IU A and 800 IU E are good. He missed the boat in recommending vit C too much for colds (i have lots of personal experience with that) and not knowing 200 mcg selenium prevents 50% of cancer incidence, although this could be connected with vit E recycling which he has covered. This is not to say his specific info on vit C and colds was wrong: he talked about 1 g/hour reducing colds by only 25% to 50%. I agree with the 25%, and I can keep my nose completely dry during a cold, but just the effort of taking that much is hardly worth it. My experience is that it helps with symptoms due to its strong anti-histamine activity but does not seem to decrease duration. Vit D is much better at prevention and massive zicam pills and gel is a miracle for symptoms and duration (my colds last 6 to 12 hours). I take echinacea too, but I can't "measure" the benefit like i can with vit D and zicam.

The book I'm talking about is "How to Live Longer and Feel Better" published in 1986. I still haven't seen a better introduction to health and have found very few errors (too little selenium and vit D, and missing a few new things). His lowest recommended vitamin C in the book could be quoted as 6,000 mg, 2,600 mg, or 1,000 mg depending on which part you quote. He only specifically explained why 2,600 mg would be the lowest for the majority.

But more recent research points out that using 400 IU of alpha tocopherol increases mortality and that it reduces another form of Vitamin E in the body(gamma tocotrienol, if I'm not mistaken). For that reason some members here use Jarrow Formulas FamilE which contains all 8 forms of Vitamin E. In fact Dr. Andreas Papas the author of The Vitamin E Factor: The Miraculous Antioxidant for the Prevention and Treatment of Heart Disease, Cancer, and Aging argues that you need all 8 forms to maintain health, all the forms have their specific use. A few members here argue that the recent negative studies on E are a result of the researchers only using alpha tocopherol they argue that new studies should use all 8 forms.

Here are some studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....Pubmed_RVDocSum

Decision Analysis Supports the Paradigm That Indiscriminate Supplementation of Vitamin E Does More Harm than Good.

Dotan Y, Pinchuk I, Lichtenberg D, Leshno M.
Department of Physiology and Pharmacology and the Faculty of Management and School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Israel.
OBJECTIVE: For many years, the prevailing concept was that LDL oxidation plays a central role in atherogenesis. As a consequence, supplementation of antioxidants, particularly vitamin E, became very popular. Unfortunately, however, the major randomized clinical trials have yielded disappointing results on the effects of vitamin E on both mortality and morbidity. Moreover, recent meta-analyses have concluded that vitamin E supplementation increases mortality. This conclusion has raised much criticism, most of it relating to three issues: (1) the choice of clinical trials to be included in the meta-analyses; (2) the end point of these meta-analyses (only mortality); and (3) the heterogeneity of the analyzed clinical trials, with respect to both population and treatment. Our goal was to bring this controversy to an end by using a Markov-model approach, which is free of most of the limitations involved in using meta-analyses. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a Markov model to compare the vitamin E supplemented virtual cohorts with nonsupplemented cohorts derived from published randomized clinical trials that were included in at least one of the major meta-analyses. The difference between the virtual supplemented and nonsupplemented cohorts is given in terms of a composite end point denoted quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The vitamin E supplemented virtual cohort had 0.27 QALY (95%CI 0.18 to 0.35) less than the nontreated virtual cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that in terms of QALY, indiscriminate supplementation of high doses of vitamin E is not beneficial in preventing CVD. Selective supplementation of vitamin E to individuals under oxidative stress requires further investigation.
Very-high-dose alpha-tocopherol supplementation increases blood pressure and causes possible adverse central nervous system effects in stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive rats.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....Pubmed_RVDocSum

Vitamin E increases the risk of developing heart failure after myocardial infarction: Results from the GISSI-Prevenzione trial.

Marchioli R, Levantesi G, Macchia A, Marfisi RM, Nicolosi GL, Tavazzi L, Tognoni G, Valagussa F; GISSI-Prevenzione Investigators.
Laboratory of Clinical Epidemiology of Cardiovascular Disease, Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Epidemiology, Consorzio Mario Negri Sud, S. Maria Imbaro (CH), Italy. marchioli@negrisud.it
OBJECTIVE: Although results from basic science suggested a protective role of vitamin E treatment in the prevention of cardiovascular disease, recent evidence indicates increased cardiovascular mortality due to vitamin E treatment. Recently, the HOPE trial showed an increment of the incidence of congestive heart failure (CHF) in patients treated with vitamin E. METHODS: We explored the effect of vitamin E on development of CHF in 8415 postinfarction patients without CHF at baseline, with an echocardiographic measure of left ventricular ejection fraction, who have been followed up for 3.5 years in the GISSI-Prevenzione trial. CHF during follow-up was defined as hospitalization or death for CHF. Cox regression models adjusted for relevant prognostic indicators were fitted. RESULTS: Main clinical characteristics were balanced in the 4202 and 4213 patients allocated vitamin E and control group, respectively. During follow-up, 220 patients (2.6%) developed CHF. Patients allocated vitamin E had a nonsignificant 20% (95% confidence intervals 0.92-1.56, P = 0.18) increased risk of developing CHF. Vitamin E treatment, however, was associated with a significant 50% increase (95% confidence intervals 1.03-2.20, P = 0.034) of CHF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction < 50%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm and extend previous evidence on the possible harmful effect of vitamin E on ventricular function in patients with cardiovascular disease. Available evidence should discourage the use of vitamin E in patients with left ventricular dysfunction.

[zawy]

Your first reference was from a school that is named after receiving funding from the founder of a pharmaceutical company, so i don't know how deep the influence of the pharmaceutical money runs in that organization. Part of their abstract is telling:

Our goal was to bring this controversy to an end

They only used studies that were accepted in the meta-analyses eventhough the primary objection was the selection of studies. And yet the abstract claims they were seeking to lay the objections to rest. It makes sense only if you view them as biased.

In your second study, the "significant" result was on a small number of people (I would guess about 100 people based on the large 1.03 to 2.20 CI range) out of 8,400 with a particular condition. Let's say the other "nonsignificant" result of 20% increased risk from vit E on 220 people was accurate. What about the other 8,200 people? Did those taking vitamin E show an increase or decrease in all-cause mortality?

Edited by zawy, 13 May 2009 - 06:39 PM.

[Dmitri]

Your first reference was from a school that is named after receiving funding from the founder of a pharmaceutical company, so i don't know how deep the influence of the pharmaceutical money runs in that organization. Part of their abstract is telling:

Our goal was to bring this controversy to an end

They only used studies that were accepted in the meta-analyses eventhough the primary objection was the selection of studies. And yet the abstract claims they were seeking to lay the objections to rest. It makes sense only if you view them as biased.

In your second study, the "significant" result was on a small number of people (I would guess about 100 people based on the large 1.03 to 2.20 CI range) out of 8,400 with a particular condition. Let's say the other "nonsignificant" result of 20% increased risk from vit E on 220 people was accurate. What about the other 8,200 people? Did those taking vitamin E show an increase or decrease in all-cause mortality?

You reject the research because it's funded by pharmaceutical companies (a lot of pharm companies make supplements), yet you trust research from decades ago? 30-50 years ago we didn't know much about our body's biochemistry and how vitamins interacted with our systems, which is part of the reason why the medical community rejected using vitamins for treatment (could be a flaw of past research?). You mention the Shute brothers in a previous post, their blind devotion for E was so strong that they continued their research despite being shunned by the medical community, are you willing to say these men had no biases? Also, were past studies long term or short term? Recent studies that point to no effect or harmful effects of alpha tocopherol alone were conducted over a period of years.

Here's a 7 year study:

http://news.bio-medi...-failure-209-1/

The proponents of Vitamin E argue that the study is flawed because only one form of E was used.

Here's another 8 year study(conducted by Doctors) that showed no benefit when combined with Vitamin C:

http://www.usatoday....nts-study_N.htm

Anyway, would you like to discuss Big Pharma here: http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=29911

Edited by Dmitri, 13 May 2009 - 09:34 PM.

[timziums88]

I truly think the key to anything is moderation. You read about all these supplements that contain 5000% DV - what's the point? Your body wastes almost all of that.

I personally feel extremely healthy when I supplement (or make sure I take enough naturally) Vitamin C - Juices do this very well!

[VespeneGas]

Zawy - could you please post studies showing benefits in healthy individuals for alpha tocopherol supplementation (400 iu or greater) and vitamin A supplementation (20,000 iu or greater)? The burden of proof is on you for recommending such high doses, yet you scoff at research that others put forward based on the name of the institution that conducted it?

This study was what first turned me off to megadosing vitamins: http://www.scienceda...70227171026.htm

Here's another disappointing writeup: http://www.scienceda...81231005315.htm

[zawy]

Vespenega, I just gave a detailed review of why your first reference is so bad. Concerning your second link, I already said I ignore everything from heavily biased sources such as Harvard and NCI and your link is by a Harvard researcher and published in the J of NCI, so from my experience, it's got to be really bad information. I know them from their prior works of the past 30 years and they are no less than evil. There are books on these institutions' crimes, but I haven't read them. I'm just speaking from personal experience after seeing their twisted logic as in an example i gave before. I think supplement sources can also be whacked out of their mind but usually not as inaccurate as the ones you're referencing.

Concerning, positive references, I do not have any off hand that meet your criteria. My belief in these levels is based on a wide variety of trusted sources I have come across over the past 15 years. I can't summarize that, and none of them are conclusive. I just wanted to explain why I would not accept the kind of information others here are accepting at face value. But here are a couple you might like:

1993 (from food) "An inverse association was observed between dietary vitamin E intake and coronary mortality in both men and women with relative risks of 0.68"
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/8209876

1994 (from food) " had a relative risk of major coronary disease of 0.66"
http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/8479463

2009 (10,000 deaths): "The beneficial effects of selenium, vitamin E, and beta-carotene on mortality were still evident up to 10 years after the cessation of supplementation and were consistently greater in younger participants." (only 50 mg vit E in nutrition-deficient area)
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19318634

Edited by zawy, 14 May 2009 - 12:51 AM.

[nameless]

As to vitamin E, and the studies mentioned above, since most of the positive ones are dietary based, how can we draw definite conclusions?

Perhaps it's not vitamin E (alpha tocopherol), but tocotrienols, which do have some positive coronary studies behind them? http://www.tocotrien...protection.html
(Bunch of science studies there)

It's really difficult when you get into population/food studies, as you don't know if it's higher fruit/vegetable intake, or a specific vitamin showing benefits.