635 replies to this topic

[niner]

 

If the production of ROS is protective against viruses and cancer, could putting C60 into the mitochondrial membrane and quenching the ROS cause problems? I know that the one rat study seemed to indicate the reverse, but if the ROS is actually protective, how would quenching them be other than non-protective? 

 

This is my main concern.  C60 seems a lot like glisodin to me, in that regard.  I'd like to see evidence that C60 doesn't shutdown endogenous antioxidant levels.  I think taking C60 effectively means you are on this product for life, because it becomes your body will become trained to different levels of ROS now that C60 is quenching a lot of this behavior.

 

And without knowing the correct human dosage, it may make it a very calculated risk as to what is the right amount over an extended period of time.

 

As I mentioned above, I'm not worried about viruses or cancer, but like you I'm concerned about the effect of c60 on endogenous antioxidant levels.  Because biology is so strongly homeostatic, I'd be surprised if endogenous antioxidants were not down-regulated to some extent.  I don't think it means that you're stuck on it for life.  You would just have a few days of oxidative stress while your endogenous systems came back up.  I would liken this to my experience of stopping NR after 3 or 4 months-- I was tired for a few days but felt pretty normal in short order.  

 

I'm not sure that there even is a correct human dosage.  I think it's more likely that there are a range of dosages that work.  Different people no doubt have different optimum dosage, depending on whatever dysfunction they do or do not have.  My main concern is how much is too much.

[sagafemina]

Thanks, good article. 

 

Here's a question.  Apologize if covered before. 

 

Activated charcoal is used to adsorb a huge number of poisons because it so effectively sops them up (a veritable "sponge" if you will). 

 

I don't suppose we have any evidence on what besides free radicals c60oo adheres to, or where it goes after the adherence, given that there is so little research on it. 

 

For those of you who are taking c60oo, do you space it out from supplements or medications? 

[niner]

Activated charcoal is used to adsorb a huge number of poisons because it so effectively sops them up (a veritable "sponge" if you will). 

 

I don't suppose we have any evidence on what besides free radicals c60oo adheres to, or where it goes after the adherence, given that there is so little research on it. 

 

For those of you who are taking c60oo, do you space it out from supplements or medications? 

 

There's quite a bit of difference between activated charcoal and c60oo.  C60oo is a single molecule, while activated charcoal is an amorphous substance of extremely large molecular size.  There's not really a defined "molecule" of activated charcoal. 

 

There is a lot of evidence, both from experiment and sophisticated computer simulation, regarding the cellular localization of c60.  It is found, in order of highest concentration, in mitochondria, in other cellular membranes, in microsomes (ER remnants), and as a minor component, in the cytosol.  The position of c60 in the membrane is half way between the middle of the membrane and the head groups.  The fatty acid adducts formed by the combination of c60 and olive oil should tend to further stabilize c60 in its preferred membrane location.

 

I'm not aware of any need to space it away from supplements or meds, although it would be likely to interfere with radiation treatments and non-targeted cancer chemotherapy.

[sagafemina]

Well, just to be safe I believe I would space it out.  Several supplements I have taken in the past (Calcium, Sierrasil come to mind) probably inactivate other substances taken simultaneously.  Would be a shame to waste those, and simultaneously dilute the potential of c60, given its cost. 

 

Another question, has any of you devotees noted a change in symptoms or signs of osteoarthritis, degenerative disc disease or osteoporosis while taking the stuff?

 

Seems to be some very good research coming out on (potential) orthopedic applications of several types of Fullerenes. 

 

The applications of buckminsterfullerene C60 and derivatives in orthopaedic research

 

Antioxidative fullerol promotes osteogenesis of human adipose-derived stem cells. - PubMed - NCBI

 

Novel treatment of neuroinflammation against low back pain by soluble fullerol nanoparticles. - PubMed - NCBI

 

 

[caliban]

After having again deleted numerous posts and warning users for violating the rules of this thread, I give up and close this attempt to try to disentangle objective scientific discussion from the anecdotal.

 

This summary will be itself be considered subjective by many, but these are the facts as I see them: 

Since the report referenced in the first post came out, (LongeCity article):  

1- the authors had to admit to misrepresentation and revise their findings, but not retract the paper in full  

2- no other lab has independently replicated or validated the study  

3- contributors to this thread have advanced a number of interesting theories as to why C60 molecules should have the alleged life-extending effect.

4- few theorists have explained the striking effect that was reported in the study for olive oil without C60

5- an industry has sprung up trying to use the study, unrelated and anecdotal evidence to sell C60 for alleged health benefits     

6- the self-administration community has grown, exchanging anecdotal reports regarding perceived effects.   

 

This thread was designed to keep the latter anecdotal reports clearly separated from scientific discussions.

Policing this simple rule has of course been been unpopular and difficult.  It is also fair to say that after 3 years the thread has become rather too long and unwieldy.

 

Niner has just started an alternative thread.  As usual, other full Members are also free start their own topics, starting their own rules at the outset and then moderate the thread accordingly themselves.

Good luck with that - and good luck to all those who remain interested in discovering reliable scientific information among the clutter of misinformation, 'testimonials',  hype and commerce that continues to be a hallmark of life extension science. 

 

PS:if someone, wants to submit an article to LongeCity summarizing the proceedings/ conclusions from this thread, you are invited to do so.   

[niner]

 

1- the authors had to admit to misrepresentation and revise their findings, but not retract the paper in full  

2- no other lab has independently replicated or validated the study

 

 

Sorry for re-opening this thread, but I'd hate for these statements to be in the last post.  The authors did not misrepresent anything, and were not asked to admit to such.  They made two careless errors, neither of which changed the conclusion.  They immediately published a correction, found in this corrigendum.  I recommend that all skeptics read it in its entirety.

 

There are two c60oo animal studies underway that I know of in professional labs.  Animal studies are very expensive, and it took 2-3 years to get these off the ground.  It will also take years for the results to be in.  Patience is needed here.  Sometimes science moves slowly.