I do however worry that old Mitos are not dying off and being replaced as they should be?
Well, a differing thought is that since Fathi said in his interview that C60 is not at all toxic - that the notion that there is some kind of harm to mitos, which is a type of toxicity, is contrary to what he said.
When a dietary supplement with anti-aging properties is known to produce no toxicity I tend to take high doses of it, as with the tocotrienols that grew hair on my head and later darkened it. I take four a day rather than 1 or 2, as the label directs. Since it's a strong anti-prostate cancer nutrient, with good effects on blood lipids, the more the better, for anti-aging purposes, the great majority of the time - up to a point of diminishing returns.
I'm seeing efforts to find the least amount of C60 that works, which, to me is like finding the RDA for a vitamin. Thousands of published studies show that RDA levels of vitamins do not produce optimal effects. They are just subsistence levels, survival levels where one doesn't get nutrient deficiency diseases. They are not optimal levels where anti-aging effects occur.
I hear very intelligent people here reporting subjective feelings of benefits when they take breaks from C60oo, so I'm definitely interested in that notion, even though it is contrary to Fathi's statement.
But the counterpoint is that since it's non-toxic, isn't it more logical to err on the side of saturation rather than find the lowest dose that does something?
I agree that seeing a huge life extension in a mammal is contrary to the idea that mitochondria are being damaged by c60. On the contrary, it suggests that mitochondria are being protected. However, there are at least theoretical reasons to consider the possibility of mitochondrial problems; oxidative damage to the mitochondrial membrane is a signal for them to be phagocytized. Your tocotrienol results sound amazing, which usually means (like Turnbuckle's hair growth) that I won't see the same results, though I'm tempted to try nonetheless.
When I stopped taking c60, I felt lousy, and when I resumed I felt better. That's an anecdote of negligible significance, but there it is.
My attempt to find the minimum dose wasn't about finding the dose that barely worked, I was looking for the minimum amount that gave the full effect, and trying to characterize the long term pharmacokinetics; that is, figuring out how long it lasts.
Nothing is non-toxic at ALL doses, so saturation is never a good idea. We know next to nothing about long term toxicity of c60-oo in humans. Developmental and reproductive tox is a complete blank spot, though that's of no consequence to you or I. I don't know if you saw my "Hypothetical Concern" thread, but people (like nearly all of us) who begin dosing in middle age are running a different experiment than Baati did. The optimal dose for us might be different than for someone who starts in their twenties.
Well, vitamin C has been confirmed to have no cyto-toxic effects at any dose, therefore non-toxic at any dose, according to Carol S. Johnston, 30+ year research scientist at USDA. So there are some things that are not toxic, which is what Fathi said about C60.
_____________________________________________
Johnston CS. Biomarkers for establishing a tolerable upper intake level for vitamin C. Nutr Rev 1999 Mar;57(3):71-77.
Dietary reference intakes (DRIs) for vitamin C for healthy U.S. populations are currently being formulated by the Panel on Dietary Antioxidants and Related Compounds of the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine. A major task of the Panel is to analyze the evidence of adverse effects of high-dose vitamin C intakes to derive, if appropriate, a Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for vitamin C. The present report details current and past research examining potential adverse effects of supplemental vitamin C. The available data indicate that very high intakes of vitamin C (2-4 g/day) are well tolerated biologically in healthy mammalian systems. Currently, strong scientific evidence to define and defend a UL for vitamin C is not available."
______________________________________________
Right about an optimal dosage range, not too much (saturation) but not too little. However, with something that is said to be completely non-toxic the main concern is that at some point - saturation, one can spend more money but get no more benefits.
That's what an optimal dosage range is. Where we get the most bang for the buck.
Well, regarding the tocotrienols, I've had confirmation from others, including one medical doctor, who saw the same hair growth I saw.
And then there are other reasons to take tocotrienols as Tocomin-SupraBio -
improved blood lipids, and an
anti-cancer effect, especially prostate cancer,
even prostate cancer stem cells that most conventional therapies do not address.As to us pper middle-agers and us taking C60 being different than young healthy rats, yes, it's true. But, remember
that study where they gave old rats activated carbon and their maximum lifespan increased by 34%?
I would hope that if we clean up our lifestyles, diets, exercise and reduce stress in general, that us older people could see a significant increase in both lifespan and healthspan, the time when we are free from disease.
I'm working on living into two centuries, if it's possible. So, yes, there are some critical areas in my aged metabolism that need to be addressed if I'm going to live that long.
But I've decided to consistently take 8 - 16 mg/day, which is less than the potential 1/6 the rat dose x 1.7 mg x 88 kg (my body weight) = 24.9 mg/day.
One thing that appears to have started up again. After 18 months of tocotrienols my hair became two shades darker. That appeared to stop at a point. Now, with C60oo it's again darkening, even the area that was white on the sides, which you can see in my current photo, is darkening.
I'll have another set of photos done with the same light/same location for comparison.
I'm pretty much amazed at what clearly appears to be age-reversal.
Edited by mikey, 08 November 2012 - 07:20 PM.