3585 replies to this topic

[Kevnzworld]

There is a new study about the role of Sirt3 and anti aging that is all over the net. Sirt3 is a mitochondrial antioxidant and protects stem cells.. I wonder if C60 either works the same way or activates Sirt3.
Quote:
"Prominently, SIRT3 regulates the global acetylation landscape of mitochondrial proteins, and SIRT3-initiated metabolic adapta- tions enhance mitochondrial management of ROS. SIRT3 increases the activity of antioxidants, such as superoxide dismu- tase 2 (SOD2) and reduced glutathione, and promotes ROS scavenging (Qiu et al., 2010; Someya et al., 2010; Tao et al.,"
http://extremelongev...s/stem-sirt.pdf
From Reason:
"Calorie restriction is noted to boost levels of SIRT3, and SIRT3 is thought to promote antioxidant activity in cells, reducing damage in the places where oxidants are produced as a side-effect of the operation of
metabolism - something that you can't achieve by ingesting antioxidants, I should add."

Ingesting the antioxidant C60 may be an exception?

Edited by Kevnzworld, 01 February 2013 - 04:09 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

Some have speculated that calorie restriction might actually be methionine restriction, and methionine restriction slows methylation of promoter regions of DNA, thereby slowing aging. I've speculated that C60 might do this too, by acting as a methyltransferase inhibitor.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 01 February 2013 - 05:13 PM.

[niner]

There is a new study about the role of Sirt3 and anti aging that is all over the net. Sirt3 is a mitochondrial antioxidant and protects stem cells.. I wonder if C60 either works the same way or activates Sirt3.

Sirt3 isn't an antioxidant itself, but it does upregulate mitochondrial antioxidants, as well as cause some other changes leading to lower oxidative stress. C60 is itself a mitochondrial antioxidant, so it would be expected to have some of the effects of upregulating Sirt3, though not all of them. I know of no evidence that it would activate Sirt3.

From Reason:
"Calorie restriction is noted to boost levels of SIRT3, and SIRT3 is thought to promote antioxidant activity in cells, reducing damage in the places where oxidants are produced as a side-effect of the operation of
metabolism - something that you can't achieve by ingesting antioxidants, I should add."

Ingesting the antioxidant C60 may be an exception?

That's certainly what I think. See my response to Reason's comment here.

[Kevnzworld]

From Reason:
"Calorie restriction is noted to boost levels of SIRT3, and SIRT3 is thought to promote antioxidant activity in cells, reducing damage in the places where oxidants are produced as a side-effect of the operation of
metabolism - something that you can't achieve by ingesting antioxidants, I should add."

Ingesting the antioxidant C60 may be an exception?

That's certainly what I think. See my response to Reason's comment here.

You should post that comment on his blog/ newsletter for others to see. It gets a lot more views than the
bioscience news forum.

http://www.fightaging.org/

[taho]

If C60oo is a SOD2 mimetic, what would chronic SOD2 overdose look like?

[anagram]

Side effects I have had from c60-oo

Forgetting abbarently salient memories: Probably from metabolism of proteins which encode our memory.
Increased hunger: My body sometimes feels like I am starving possibly because of the increased metabolism.
Mild cell death?: While I was under a strong lamp I put a drop of c60 on my arm, and in a few seconds it looked pitted in that spot.
Depression: From longer NMDA receptor opening times: related to metabolism of endorphins?


-mnSOD becomes very toxic in higher concentrations, I wonder if c60 can as well.


Interestingly, before anyone tested c60 for pharmacological effects, It was used as a specified killer to target certain plant strains and cells.
C60 causes massive birth defects in a lot of smaller animals, so I wouldn't recommend use by anyone who is planning on conceiving or having children. c60 has been shown to cross the BBB for placenta, and the brain. As of yet there are few studies describing its effects on preconceived children's growth and development.
It obviously has potential dangers. Whether these are related to its SOD mimetic properties is not entirely known.

Edited by anagram, 02 February 2013 - 12:45 AM.

[niner]

Side effects I have had from c60-oo

Forgetting abbarently salient memories: Probably from metabolism of proteins which encode our memory.
Increased hunger: My body sometimes feels like I am starving possibly because of the increased metabolism.
Mild cell death?: While I was under a strong lamp I put a drop of c60 on my arm, and in a few seconds it looked pitted in that spot.
Depression: From longer NMDA receptor opening times: related to metabolism of endorphins?

Something tells me that these things would have happened with or without c60.

-mnSOD becomes very toxic in higher concentrations, I wonder if c60 can as well.

Huh? Do you have a source for this?

Interestingly, before anyone tested c60 for pharmacological effects, It was used as a specified killer to target certain plant strains and cells.
C60 causes massive birth defects in a lot of smaller animals, so I wouldn't recommend use by anyone who is planning on conceiving or having children. c60 has been shown to cross the BBB for placenta, and the brain. As of yet there are few studies describing its effects on preconceived children's growth and development.
It obviously has potential dangers. Whether these are related to its SOD mimetic properties is not entirely known.

You are confusing wildly different c60 analogs, in different physical states, probably in combination with UV radiation, and maybe suffering from the now well known THF experimental artifact. Little or none of this will be relevant to c60-oo, a different molecule in a different physical state, at a much lower concentration. The only part of this that I agree with is that c60-oo shouldn't be used in pregnant women or children, because we have no information on its effect on development.

[anagram]

Side effects I have had from c60-oo

Forgetting abbarently salient memories: Probably from metabolism of proteins which encode our memory.
Increased hunger: My body sometimes feels like I am starving possibly because of the increased metabolism.
Mild cell death?: While I was under a strong lamp I put a drop of c60 on my arm, and in a few seconds it looked pitted in that spot.
Depression: From longer NMDA receptor opening times: related to metabolism of endorphins?

Something tells me that these things would have happened with or without c60.

-mnSOD becomes very toxic in higher concentrations, I wonder if c60 can as well.

Huh? Do you have a source for this?

Interestingly, before anyone tested c60 for pharmacological effects, It was used as a specified killer to target certain plant strains and cells.
C60 causes massive birth defects in a lot of smaller animals, so I wouldn't recommend use by anyone who is planning on conceiving or having children. c60 has been shown to cross the BBB for placenta, and the brain. As of yet there are few studies describing its effects on preconceived children's growth and development.
It obviously has potential dangers. Whether these are related to its SOD mimetic properties is not entirely known.

You are confusing wildly different c60 analogs, in different physical states, probably in combination with UV radiation, and maybe suffering from the now well known THF experimental artifact. Little or none of this will be relevant to c60-oo, a different molecule in a different physical state, at a much lower concentration. The only part of this that I agree with is that c60-oo shouldn't be used in pregnant women or children, because we have no information on its effect on development.

There is no evidence that c60-oo is an SOD mimetic, carboxyfullerene is the only fullerene tested for SOD mimetic activity.

sorry I have no source for the Mn SOD statement, I saw it on a thread which I cannot remember, though I do remember that a study said that Mn SOD's efficacy dropped significantly when the certain concentration of the enzyme was reached.

And the abberant memories I was talking about are from 10-15 years ago, they are completely random and have no context, they were just weird moments to seconds that I randomly remembered. I read somewhere that the reason why adults lose they're ability to make new memories is because old ones cannot be destroyed, the neuronal connections are tough.
(what you learn > what you forget)
C60 helps with metabolism and cellular functions, including the proper regulation of memories.

[mikey]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21429293

This study shows that H2O2 exerts an effect on ferrititn, causing free Fe ions to be released.
The other study on Tempol that I posted shows that Tempol causes increased cell damage from H2O2 once the Tempol has been removed. There is a connection between increased SOD activity and release of Fe, quite counter productively, the H2O2 damage that we are trying to alleviate is being increased once the SOD mimetic is removed.

"All of the animal experiments would suggest just the opposite, if anything."
hmmm
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18299140
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22891547
I was wrong. But the oxidative damage potential of c60 is still a concern.

I agree on the use of small dose's being worse that large dose's, I realized I was wrong about that.

I find it important to note that in the video interview that Anthony conducted with Dr. Fathi Moussa, who has studied C60 for 18 years and is a noted expert in several fields, Dr. Moussa stated that C60 "absolutely" did not cause toxicity.

As Anthony reminded us, he said this again later in the interview, as if to emphasize the lack of toxicity of C60.

So, there are two camps.

One that thinks that they must take C60 occasionally, with breaks because of possible toxic effects on mitochondria and one that I am in that take it every day and have only experienced benefits, never problems.

I'm saying this because I think that some who read these posts will benefit knowing that there are those who believe what this high level research scientist, who conducted the study that this group is named for, said - that C60 "absolutely" does not cause toxicity.

[Kevnzworld]

Regarding mnSOD toxicity, this is what I think anagram was referring to.
http://europepmc.org...act/MED/8005514
Also
Quote: " Unfortunately a bell-shaped dose-response curve has been observed, whereby SOD at higher concentrations loses its effectiveness and may even enhance the extent of reperfusion injury."
http://www.jbc.org/c...268/1/416.short

There is no evidence that I've seen that C60 is analogous to SOD2 and produces H202 which is how ( if I read everything correctly ), SOD2 becomes toxic at high levels.
I choose to dose C60OO in small amounts intermittently. I have noticed no effects either positive or negative to date.

[kenj]

Sry if this has already been extensively discussed but would you advise AGAINST using c60 oil on food (like in cold salads, or on a piece of bread, etc.)?

[Turnbuckle]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21429293

This study shows that H2O2 exerts an effect on ferrititn, causing free Fe ions to be released.
The other study on Tempol that I posted shows that Tempol causes increased cell damage from H2O2 once the Tempol has been removed. There is a connection between increased SOD activity and release of Fe, quite counter productively, the H2O2 damage that we are trying to alleviate is being increased once the SOD mimetic is removed.

"All of the animal experiments would suggest just the opposite, if anything."
hmmm
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18299140
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22891547
I was wrong. But the oxidative damage potential of c60 is still a concern.

I agree on the use of small dose's being worse that large dose's, I realized I was wrong about that.

I find it important to note that in the video interview that Anthony conducted with Dr. Fathi Moussa, who has studied C60 for 18 years and is a noted expert in several fields, Dr. Moussa stated that C60 "absolutely" did not cause toxicity.

As Anthony reminded us, he said this again later in the interview, as if to emphasize the lack of toxicity of C60.

So, there are two camps.

One that thinks that they must take C60 occasionally, with breaks because of possible toxic effects on mitochondria and one that I am in that take it every day and have only experienced benefits, never problems.

I'm saying this because I think that some who read these posts will benefit knowing that there are those who believe what this high level research scientist, who conducted the study that this group is named for, said - that C60 "absolutely" does not cause toxicity.

What, is Moussa your god that he can make wild declarations and you believe him? He treated a handful or rats, mostly with once a week treatments for six months, and you think that is evidence it's absolutely safe for humans to take every day? As for Anthony, he's not a scientist or high priest. He's a vendor. So don't be so trusting. It is probable that C60 is relatively safe, but it is most unlikely that it is absolutely safe.

[niner]

Regarding mnSOD toxicity, this is what I think anagram was referring to.
http://europepmc.org...act/MED/8005514
Also
Quote: " Unfortunately a bell-shaped dose-response curve has been observed, whereby SOD at higher concentrations loses its effectiveness and may even enhance the extent of reperfusion injury."
http://www.jbc.org/c...268/1/416.short

There is no evidence that I've seen that C60 is analogous to SOD2 and produces H202 which is how ( if I read everything correctly ), SOD2 becomes toxic at high levels.

Thanks for those refs, Kev. They do help to clarify mechanisms of radical damage, although they both represent very unusual situations of high SOD levels and/or high superoxide concentrations from reperfusion injury. It does raise at least a hypothetical concern that an extremely high level of c60-oo combined with, say, a stroke could result in an enhancement of reperfusion injury. I suspect that the level necessary to see a situation like that is rather insanely high, but someone would need to do the biochemistry to figure that out. In the meantime, it's pretty clear that the very high doses Baati gave to his rats was a net benefit to them, and none of us are taking that much. The c60 SOD analogy comes from Laura Dugan's work, where a tris-malonyl C60 was shown to be an effective SOD mimetic. Whether or not c60-oo has SOD-mimetic ability hasn't been demonstrated experimentally, but is chemically plausible. (i.e. you can construct a mechanism for it where all the steps have chemical precedent and are energetically reasonable.)

Sry if this has already been extensively discussed but would you advise AGAINST using c60 oil on food (like in cold salads, or on a piece of bread, etc.)?

That's exactly how I take it. I can't think of any reason not to. It's also how AgeVivo doses his mice, and is the method we're planning on using for more extensive animal experiments.

What, is Moussa your god that he can make wild declarations and you believe him? He treated a handful or rats, mostly with once a week treatments for six months, and you think that is evidence it's absolutely safe for humans to take every day? As for Anthony, he's not a scientist or high priest. He's a vendor. So don't be so trusting. It is probable that C60 is relatively safe, but it is most unlikely that it is absolutely safe.

Anagram has been consistently alarmist, but I have to agree with Turnbuckle that we don't have much reason to believe that c60 is absolutely safe for humans. I'm going to approach it with a bit of caution until we know a lot more about it.

[Kevnzworld]

Re: C60 and the safety of SOD mimetics
" The c60 SOD analogy comes from Laura Dugan's work, where a tris-malonyl C60 was shown to be an effective SOD mimetic.
Whether or not c60-oo has SOD-mimetic ability hasn't been demonstrated experimentally, but is chemically plausible " ( Niner )

This study, though a vague abstract whose contents I don't have access to, seems to raise questions about lypophilic mitochondrial SOD mimetics.
Quote: " In this paper, we present evidence, for the first time, that increasing the lipophilicity of mitochondria targeting SOD mimetics reverses their cytoprotective properties, destabilizing the mitochondrial membrane system and promoting cell death. "
http://www.sciencedi...567724911000274

[niner]

This study, though a vague abstract whose contents I don't have access to, seems to raise questions about lypophilic mitochondrial SOD mimetics.
Quote: " In this paper, we present evidence, for the first time, that increasing the lipophilicity of mitochondria targeting SOD mimetics reverses their cytoprotective properties, destabilizing the mitochondrial membrane system and promoting cell death. "
http://www.sciencedi...567724911000274

Hard to say what's going on there. They were soaking cells in 1-10 uM of their SOD mimetics for 24 hours. Even the lowest concentration they used is more exposure than we're likely seeing from c60-oo, but not lots of orders of magnitude more, so I don't think it can be discounted on that alone. Adding 10 uM NAC didn't affect the toxicity at all, which suggests something other than an oxidative mechanism. An oxidative mechanism that NAC for some reason doesn't help? I don't know. People have exposed cells to various c60 analogs and not seen this sort of necrotic cell death, at least not without radiation, AFAIK. Maybe it's something peculiar to these nitroxides and not necessarily SOD-mimetic related? I would have to come back to the biological results that we actually know about, and they all say that c60-oo is good for mammals, or at least not terrifically bad. All this does suggest that massive overdoses of c60-oo may not be a great idea, but then massive ODs are rarely a great idea.

[nowayout]

I have to wonder if the C60 as antioxidant increasing lifespan hypothesis isn't a dead end, given the lack of life-prolonging effect (and sometimes life-shortening effect) of all other studied exogenous antioxidants in animal and human studies.

If the purported C60 effect is real, I would actually hope that there is something more interesting going on than this - the discovery of a previously unknown aging pathway would be most promising.

[taho]

I have to wonder if the C60 as antioxidant increasing lifespan hypothesis isn't a dead end, given the lack of life-prolonging effect (and sometimes life-shortening effect) of all other studied exogenous antioxidants in animal and human studies.

If the purported C60 effect is real, I would actually hope that there is something more interesting going on than this - the discovery of a previously unknown aging pathway would be most promising.

I think that C60-oo as SOD2 mimetic would explain why it could be so much different then all the other exogenous antioxidants studies.

The way I see it, there are SOD1 (inside cells), SOD2 (mitochondrial membranes of the cells) and SOD3 (outside of cells). SOD1 and SOD3 are floating in the water and if they catch ROS - it's better then nothing but, if you don't produce them, you can still live more or less normal life. SOD2 is very much different. If you don't have it, you die before you even get born or shortly after.

If you flood your body with hydrophilic (C vitamin) vitamins, then the body down regulates production of SOD1 and SOD3. Since those two aren't as important to begin with, the whole thing doesn't really matter. They can help recycle lipofilic vitamins (E vitamin) but "one hit - one radical quenched" vitamins, don't really help, because then the body down regulates SOD2 that is "many hits - it still works" and the whole thing is no better then before. You could increase the amount of lipofilic vitamins, but there is a limit to how much you can put in your body before everything becomes toxic..

Now, if you have SOD2 mimetic, that is smaller but works on the same "many hits - it still works" and you flood your body with them, they get imbedded in lipid walls and they stay there. The body doesn't produce any immune response and doesn't do anything about them. But, they are there, working, catching ROS and reducing damage to everything. The body gradually reduces SOD2 production anyway (it's only 50% by the time you are 40), but if you have enough C60-oo, you couldn't care less if the body stops SOD2 production altogether.

That doesn't mean that you will live forever, but it means that you have one less thing to worry about. You still get AGEs. You still have telomeres. You still have genetic expressions. You still have changed hormone levels. You still get amyliods. You must still fight with viruses and bacterium. You still must deal with wear and tear and that bus that could smash into you if you are not careful crossing the road..

[niner]

I have to wonder if the C60 as antioxidant increasing lifespan hypothesis isn't a dead end, given the lack of life-prolonging effect (and sometimes life-shortening effect) of all other studied exogenous antioxidants in animal and human studies.

If the purported C60 effect is real, I would actually hope that there is something more interesting going on than this - the discovery of a previously unknown aging pathway would be most promising.

Until now, all the widely studied antioxidants suffer from one of the following problems: poor bioavailability, bad pharmacokinetics, inadequate mechanism, or they preferentially locate in inappropriate biological depots. C60-oo scores well in every one of these criteria. By "purported C60 effect" I presume you mean life extension in rats. There are other effects that need to be explained as well- profound improvement in conditions characterized by hypoxia or mitochondrial dysfunction, reduction in chronic inflammation, protection against oxidative insult (CCl4) and reduction in ROS-mediated muscle fatigue. The detoxification of superoxide anion, and possibly some electron shuttling is consistent with all of this. I can't think of anything else plausible that is.

I'm not really sure why a new aging pathway would be more promising. I guess it would be exciting news, since the discovery of important forms of aging damage seems to have petered out. Look at this list of aging pathways. The last new aging pathway discovery was 1982. Most were discovered before the Beatles came to America. Considering the phenomenal improvement in our understanding of biology at the molecular level, and the multiple order of magnitude increase in the power of our tools, I'd have to say that the odds of finding a totally new (and non-trivial) aging pathway after thirty years were pretty long. Not zero, but pretty long. On the other hand, if you consider the seven pathways that SENS has laid out in that list, oxidation is involved to greater or lesser degrees in most if not all of them.

[free10]

My view it is the telomeres one way or another. When we are young and most of the telomeres and DNA are also long and young everything works great though not everyone has the same length head start and not everyone has the same environmental factors also affecting them. Now, by around 50 with some sooner and some later things start to go obviously wrong. Too many telomeres are too short or are getting close to it and we have a sea of senescent cells spread throughout our bodies spewing poisons, and some of them use to produce things like SOD for protection from the poisons(ROS or free radicals or whatever) The battle has shifted, with more and more bad guys showing up and your ammo is dropping fast. Our soldiers are getting very old, and more and more about to convert into bad guy zombie land. We can increase telomerase, change lifestyles, or take nutrients and it all helps some by one means or another, but the end is still straight ahead just a little further off.

Around the corner walks C60 with it bullet absorbing shields in mass everywhere. Bad guy zombies still fire but their bullets of poison get caught after it leaves their barrels and they drop harmlessly to the ground and DNA and telomeres stop being chopped to pieces by this withering fire. Now, medics can rush in as has been going on to keep repairing and replacing the damaged soldiers, with stem cells and perhaps younger ones and with telomerase for DNA repair and who knows what else. Their work now is much easier without the additional damage repair work coming in faster than they can keep up. The tide of war has shifted quite dramatically. The DNA should be getting better and I would not be surprised to here the telomeres are lengthening in this ideal environment effectively with war.
Another comment on all this. I see the rats living without the C60 after they stopped getting it not because there was some hiding in the cells but simply because they were still young and restarted aging without it. Mice and men though are a little different, and age a little different because of this. We have SOD and they produce vitamin C for a similar role of defense. They have big size telomeres while we have longer smaller ones. They produce telomerase more widely in their cells than we do. They age more because of things like ROS while we age more from telomere damage and shortening, but the two are bound together in a march towards death.

In the end, I think we have just won the war against aging and what comes with it, with the C60 find and the telomerase inducer repair machines we have found recently. I see C60 as a much greater find than say antibiotics.

[anagram]

The compound that is used to synthesize Carboxyfullerene from Fullerene, looks like an AGE. Perhaps all aging is, is a decrease in the ability to absorb nutrients because of AGE's, and what C60 does is it reacts with AGE's preventing they're reaction of important molecules(Cell wall), and prevents the aging bio markers. C60 opens up the space between cells, allowing for better food intake by cells, enhanced dendrite formation, cellular integrity. This theory would explain why Carnosine(AGE breaker) increases life span, and why an increased expression of SOD(generates H2O2) is good, because H2O2 oxidizes AGE's so that they cannot cause harm. The double edged sword in age dependent increase in SOD expression will lead to its eventual toxicity, however treatment with exogenous AGE breakers like Carnosine and c60 prevent any genetic changes like an increase in SOD.



-the basis for my theory is the fact that all cells at any age are capable of replication invivo, and almost all cells are capable of protecting themselves with endogenous antioxidants at really any age. If you consider that people can have perfectly healthy children in they're late 30's, it makes it seem like endogenous DNA damage does not impact human health or development, and that the problem is something that builds up over time, but is not specifically DNA damage.

Edited by anagram, 03 February 2013 - 03:33 AM.

[Kevnzworld]

Anagram...
This should be a new post in the supplement and or regimen forum. It would open it up to general commentary..

[anagram]

k

[mikey]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21429293

This study shows that H2O2 exerts an effect on ferrititn, causing free Fe ions to be released.
The other study on Tempol that I posted shows that Tempol causes increased cell damage from H2O2 once the Tempol has been removed. There is a connection between increased SOD activity and release of Fe, quite counter productively, the H2O2 damage that we are trying to alleviate is being increased once the SOD mimetic is removed.

"All of the animal experiments would suggest just the opposite, if anything."
hmmm
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18299140
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22891547
I was wrong. But the oxidative damage potential of c60 is still a concern.

I agree on the use of small dose's being worse that large dose's, I realized I was wrong about that.

I find it important to note that in the video interview that Anthony conducted with Dr. Fathi Moussa, who has studied C60 for 18 years and is a noted expert in several fields, Dr. Moussa stated that C60 "absolutely" did not cause toxicity.

As Anthony reminded us, he said this again later in the interview, as if to emphasize the lack of toxicity of C60.

So, there are two camps.

One that thinks that they must take C60 occasionally, with breaks because of possible toxic effects on mitochondria and one that I am in that take it every day and have only experienced benefits, never problems.

I'm saying this because I think that some who read these posts will benefit knowing that there are those who believe what this high level research scientist, who conducted the study that this group is named for, said - that C60 "absolutely" does not cause toxicity.

What, is Moussa your god that he can make wild declarations and you believe him? He treated a handful or rats, mostly with once a week treatments for six months, and you think that is evidence it's absolutely safe for humans to take every day? As for Anthony, he's not a scientist or high priest. He's a vendor. So don't be so trusting. It is probable that C60 is relatively safe, but it is most unlikely that it is absolutely safe.

I'm surprised at you, Turnbuckle. That was shockingly stated -- and it seems that it comes from a defensive posture.

But, yes, I trust his knowledge of C60 far more than I do yours and your theory that they stumbled on something good when they decreased the frequency of dosing.

I don't agree with you.

He's a known expert in multiple disciplines and has been studying C60 for 18 years. His statement is the summation of his knowledge of many, many studies over a tremendous period of time.

And as you know, scientists of his stature don't make statements like that without carefully considering the words they use.

Your statement seemed to try to dismiss what he said (twice in the video) as trite and careless.

It seemed so odd to see you do that in what appeared to be anger. Do you fear a difference of opinion?

So, yes. I believe that C60oo is completely non-toxic. In fact, I believe that it improves overall health tremendously and that taking it every day is the best application - and that's my experience with it since I started taking it in early August.

My skin collagen is years younger. You noted that scars faded. I have two big, deep scars that are almost invisible now.
Wrinkles melted. My hair is healthier.

C60 is the closest thing to an anti-aging elixir of anything I've experienced.

So, yes, I will continue to take 7 mg every morning to protect my mitos, collagen, liver, brain and - well, more will be revealed.

[mikey]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21429293

This study shows that H2O2 exerts an effect on ferrititn, causing free Fe ions to be released.
The other study on Tempol that I posted shows that Tempol causes increased cell damage from H2O2 once the Tempol has been removed. There is a connection between increased SOD activity and release of Fe, quite counter productively, the H2O2 damage that we are trying to alleviate is being increased once the SOD mimetic is removed.

"All of the animal experiments would suggest just the opposite, if anything."
hmmm
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18299140
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22891547
I was wrong. But the oxidative damage potential of c60 is still a concern.

I agree on the use of small dose's being worse that large dose's, I realized I was wrong about that.

I find it important to note that in the video interview that Anthony conducted with Dr. Fathi Moussa, who has studied C60 for 18 years and is a noted expert in several fields, Dr. Moussa stated that C60 "absolutely" did not cause toxicity.

As Anthony reminded us, he said this again later in the interview, as if to emphasize the lack of toxicity of C60.

So, there are two camps.

One that thinks that they must take C60 occasionally, with breaks because of possible toxic effects on mitochondria and one that I am in that take it every day and have only experienced benefits, never problems.

I'm saying this because I think that some who read these posts will benefit knowing that there are those who believe what this high level research scientist, who conducted the study that this group is named for, said - that C60 "absolutely" does not cause toxicity.

What, is Moussa your god that he can make wild declarations and you believe him? He treated a handful or rats, mostly with once a week treatments for six months, and you think that is evidence it's absolutely safe for humans to take every day? As for Anthony, he's not a scientist or high priest. He's a vendor. So don't be so trusting. It is probable that C60 is relatively safe, but it is most unlikely that it is absolutely safe.

Also, you should check yourself for what appeared to be you putting Anthony down as being just a "vendor" which infers that he only did the interview with Dr. Moussa to profit.

That is really out of line, Turnbuckle.

So far, my experience reading Anthony's posts and personally communicating with him show him to be a caring, transparent individual, maybe too nice for his own good. But he definitely isn't twisting facts to make money or anything even close to that.

I do not find any traces of him being as you seemed to portray him as just a "vendor."

You really owe him an apology.

[taho]

I don't think anybody should apology to anybody. It's good that we challenge authority figures, that say that something is like that “just because I say so, because I am an expert”. Dr. Moussa hasn’t done any experiments in vivo on humans, so his definitive answers don’t matter. He just doesn’t know.

We are talking here about really breakthrough stuff. Nobel price stuff. Brainstorming is good. It’s good if we focus on facts, hypothesis, feasibilities. I very much like how niner and others try to explain why something can or can’t be. If that means that we must delve into some things that we don’t know yet and learn – good. Nobody else is doing that. This is the only place on the whole internet that still mulls over that 90% increase in lifespan of rats and we have tens of “lab rats” that are doing human trials. C60 has been know as potent antioxidant for more then 15 years and yet we still only read articles like “Vitamin C is good for you”..

And to get back to topic.. how feasible is an idea that C60oo (or only C60) acts a AGE inhibitor?

Edited by taho, 03 February 2013 - 09:53 AM.

[Turnbuckle]

I'm surprised at you, Turnbuckle. That was shockingly stated -- and it seems that it comes from a defensive posture.

But, yes, I trust his knowledge of C60 far more than I do yours and your theory that they stumbled on something good when they decreased the frequency of dosing.

I don't agree with you.

He's a known expert in multiple disciplines and has been studying C60 for 18 years. His statement is the summation of his knowledge of many, many studies over a tremendous period of time.

And as you know, scientists of his stature don't make statements like that without carefully considering the words they use.

Your statement seemed to try to dismiss what he said (twice in the video) as trite and careless.

It seemed so odd to see you do that in what appeared to be anger. Do you fear a difference of opinion?

So, yes. I believe that C60oo is completely non-toxic. In fact, I believe that it improves overall health tremendously and that taking it every day is the best application - and that's my experience with it since I started taking it in early August.

My skin collagen is years younger. You noted that scars faded. I have two big, deep scars that are almost invisible now.
Wrinkles melted. My hair is healthier.

C60 is the closest thing to an anti-aging elixir of anything I've experienced.

So, yes, I will continue to take 7 mg every morning to protect my mitos, collagen, liver, brain and - well, more will be revealed.

I'm sorry you took offense, mikey, but my statement stands. Moussa was careless in assuring us that C60 was absolutely harmless. And as for Anthony being a vendor, yes, he is, and is certainly not in the position to make any assurances either. Nothing more was implied. As for yourself, with the "more will be revealed," you have the sound of a true believer. This can be dangerous when combined with unproven drugs. I agree that C60 in EVOO is a terrific breakthrough, but like all drugs, will be found to have a dark side. I've already seen that C70 has very negative effects, and there are enough papers out there raising doubts about C60's safety to give a prospective user pause. For myself, I'm not concerned enough not to take it, but I would never tell anyone that there's no concern at all.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 03 February 2013 - 11:46 AM.

[niner]

and we have tens of “lab rats” that are doing human trials.

Yes, somewhere between 50 and 100 people here that have at least mentioned using it, with many reporting dose and observations of effect. Based on the hints that we've gotten from c60-oo vendors, I suspect that sales are in the thousands, and I kind of doubt that much of that is going into rodents. People can also make their own very easily. It's probably been in several thousand humans by now.

And to get back to topic.. how feasible is an idea that C60oo (or only C60) acts a AGE inhibitor?

Not very. AGEs are hydrophilic, and glycation tends to happen in an aqueous environment. C60-oo is a very hydrophobic compound, so it will tend not to be in the right place to do anything. There's nothing about AGE chemistry that really jumps out at me as a thing that C60 would be really good at subverting. If we were to speculate that AGE inhibition is the predominant or only mechanism by which c60-oo works, that would ignore all the other well known mechanisms of aging, and wouldn't explain any of the effects we've seen in humans, nor would it explain protection against CCl4 toxicity.

[nowayout]

I have to wonder if the C60 as antioxidant increasing lifespan hypothesis isn't a dead end, given the lack of life-prolonging effect (and sometimes life-shortening effect) of all other studied exogenous antioxidants in animal and human studies.

If the purported C60 effect is real, I would actually hope that there is something more interesting going on than this - the discovery of a previously unknown aging pathway would be most promising.

On the other hand, if you consider the seven pathways that SENS has laid out in that list, oxidation is involved to greater or lesser degrees in most if not all of them.

But what about the several more or less recent experiments on transgenic organisms that express less endogenous antioxidants, have more oxidative damage, and yet live significantly longer than wild-type? I kind of thought that they exposed a weak point in the oxidation hypothesis of aging.

[anagram]

Aren't AGE's made of Lysine, Arginine, relatively large amino acids which are fat and water soluble? I always thought the most obvious example of AGE, is skin, which I am positive is not hydrophillic. Perhaps AGE is not so hydrophillic as niner said earlier, and c60-oo does come into contact and reacts with AGE's.

Edited by anagram, 03 February 2013 - 07:21 PM.

[niner]

I have to wonder if the C60 as antioxidant increasing lifespan hypothesis isn't a dead end, given the lack of life-prolonging effect (and sometimes life-shortening effect) of all other studied exogenous antioxidants in animal and human studies.

If the purported C60 effect is real, I would actually hope that there is something more interesting going on than this - the discovery of a previously unknown aging pathway would be most promising.

On the other hand, if you consider the seven pathways that SENS has laid out in that list, oxidation is involved to greater or lesser degrees in most if not all of them.

But what about the several more or less recent experiments on transgenic organisms that express less endogenous antioxidants, have more oxidative damage, and yet live significantly longer than wild-type? I kind of thought that they exposed a weak point in the oxidation hypothesis of aging.

I suspect that there is something confusing going on, like a hormetic upregulation of an antioxidant system that wasn't knocked out, but if you wanted to start a new thread based on those experiments, it sounds like it would be worth talking about. Were those experiments in mammals? That might change the picture a lot. It's just impossible to say that oxidation isn't important in aging. ROS damages mitochondrial DNA, which leads to defective mitochondria that don't trigger mitophagy. They're clonally expanded until they choke off the cell, causing it to senesce or die. Oxidative damage to telomeres is poorly repaired, and results in telomere shortening, leading to senescence. Oxidation is sufficiently involved in AGE formation that the process is sometimes called 'glycoxidation'. ROS-mediated chronic inflammation contributes to cancer formation. There are probably more examples I'm forgetting.