3585 replies to this topic

[niner]

I've been following this for a while because I quit taken C60 because I feared that maybe the c60 was also removing nutrients from the cell I'm trying to put in. So I will see how you all do. Thank you for your all continued experimentation.

 

I was wondering if any animal people out their could get some rats of there own to try these large doses people mention to see what happens.

 

From a biochemical point of view, I can't imagine any way that c60 would remove nutrients from a cell.   There are a lot of animal experiments that are underway using normal doses.  Some people are playing around with megadoses now, and that hasn't been tried long term in animals.  There have been short term experiments at high dose in rats.

[sensei]

That's the normal colour. Your seeing the magenta because of the depth through the bottle. Like looking at the sea from a distance it's blue because of the light but transparent on a spoon or a bucket full.
I get the same magenta crushed or uncrushed and light brown on the spoon. The only difference is the length of time it takes to change to that colour.

 

 

I know.

 

Some posters have questioned about the commercial C60OO being brown.

[SteveF]

 

I've been following this for a while because I quit taken C60 because I feared that maybe the c60 was also removing nutrients from the cell I'm trying to put in. So I will see how you all do. Thank you for your all continued experimentation.

 

I was wondering if any animal people out their could get some rats of there own to try these large doses people mention to see what happens.

 

From a biochemical point of view, I can't imagine any way that c60 would remove nutrients from a cell.   There are a lot of animal experiments that are underway using normal doses.  Some people are playing around with megadoses now, and that hasn't been tried long term in animals.  There have been short term experiments at high dose in rats.

 

 

The reason I think that way is because the power C60 had at protecting the liver in the rats from carbon tetracloride. It had to do that someway like pulling it away from the liver. Would anybody know how C60 did that?

 

.
 

[pleb]

I've used SVs early on and that's in small brown bottles. And looked the same light brown on the spoon.
But I'm not sure about carbons although I think the original bottles were a similar size.

[niner]

 

From a biochemical point of view, I can't imagine any way that c60 would remove nutrients from a cell. 

 

The reason I think that way is because the power C60 had at protecting the liver in the rats from carbon tetracloride. It had to do that someway like pulling it away from the liver. Would anybody know how C60 did that?

 

That's not done be removing CCl4, but rather by de-activating the free radicals formed as products of the metabolism of CCl4.

[mikey]

 

 

I've been following this for a while because I quit taken C60 because I feared that maybe the c60 was also removing nutrients from the cell I'm trying to put in. So I will see how you all do. Thank you for your all continued experimentation.

 

I was wondering if any animal people out their could get some rats of there own to try these large doses people mention to see what happens.

 

From a biochemical point of view, I can't imagine any way that c60 would remove nutrients from a cell.   There are a lot of animal experiments that are underway using normal doses.  Some people are playing around with megadoses now, and that hasn't been tried long term in animals.  There have been short term experiments at high dose in rats.

 

 

The reason I think that way is because the power C60 had at protecting the liver in the rats from carbon tetracloride. It had to do that someway like pulling it away from the liver. Would anybody know how C60 did that?

 

.
 

 

 

Dr. Moussa said, in his video interview that it was caused by C60's antioxidant effect, which is a protective effect. I wish that I could find the reference, but I read that C60 has 172 times more antioxidant effect than vitamin C.

 

I had heard an even higher number, from someone on LongeCity.

 

Perhaps someone here knows more about that.

[HighDesertWizard]

Just an FYI -- Update

 

I have started to consume my home-made batch. It was 225 mg in about 325 ml (I added more to the initial 250 ml to help dissolve)

 

I am taking 2 table spoons (30ml) a day which is approximately 24mg.

 

The C60OO looks red/magenta in the bottle, but brown in the spoon.

 

I am going to make another batch but will crush this time.

 

I have used both crushed and non-crushed. I experienced positive effects with the non-crushed, but the crushed dissolves much better.

[Kalliste]

 

 

 

I've been following this for a while because I quit taken C60 because I feared that maybe the c60 was also removing nutrients from the cell I'm trying to put in. So I will see how you all do. Thank you for your all continued experimentation.

 

I was wondering if any animal people out their could get some rats of there own to try these large doses people mention to see what happens.

 

From a biochemical point of view, I can't imagine any way that c60 would remove nutrients from a cell.   There are a lot of animal experiments that are underway using normal doses.  Some people are playing around with megadoses now, and that hasn't been tried long term in animals.  There have been short term experiments at high dose in rats.

 

 

The reason I think that way is because the power C60 had at protecting the liver in the rats from carbon tetracloride. It had to do that someway like pulling it away from the liver. Would anybody know how C60 did that?

 

.
 

 

 

Dr. Moussa said, in his video interview that it was caused by C60's antioxidant effect, which is a protective effect. I wish that I could find the reference, but I read that C60 has 172 times more antioxidant effect than vitamin C.

 

I had heard an even higher number, from someone on LongeCity.

 

Perhaps someone here knows more about that.

 

 

That number is probably from GVA's page on HyFn. Do not know if its correct.

[YOLF]

Announcement - We don't have a date yet, but anyone interested in online hangouts for local chapters or specific interests should fill out the unofficial questionnaire (hover for details) as we will be holding a C60 topic discussion via google hangouts.

Edited by YOLF, 09 February 2015 - 07:20 PM.

[pone11]

Someone is publishing in another C60 thread a study suggesting a possible mechanism for why C60+OO works.  I think the underlying idea is pretty important and deserves some conversation:

http://www.longecity...-18#entry713025

[yogi]

Do we know that months or years of mega-dosing won't result in crystals that just keep growing ? 

 

 

That is a strategy I would prefer as well to mitigate the risk of homeostaasis.

 

 

We have no idea and they may keep growing, but it appears from the study that the macrophages are dealing with them.

 

Homeostasis? You're thinking it's modifying the genome? I'm betting free radical. Some kind of genomic reset might be possible, but I wouldn't know.

 

Sensei said, "as far as oral admin at 4mg/kg it is questionable to what degree.". What's the reasoning? From the look of image C in Fig 2 from Baati, the degree appears obvious, it's less than I.P., but the "crystals" are clearly there. I don't know much biology either, but Wikipedia says macrophages "are a type of white blood cell that engulfs and digests cellular debris, foreign substances, microbes, and cancer cells in a process called phagocytosis." The spleen has it's own type of macrophage, perhaps they're equipped for this. C60 may be different than what they usually deal with, but their purpose is to clear debris, including small particles, which they appear to be doing in Fig 2, images C and D. Given the outcome of the first study it seems reasonable that, had the rats not been sacrificed, the crystals in their spleens probably would have been cleared by the macrophages that had already engulfed them.

 

At worst these "crystals" seem to be much less harmful than than the accompanying better dissolved and/or adducted C60 is beneficial. And don't forget that this 4mg/kg x 7days dose(equivalent to a 165 lb man taking 9g/mo) protected the rats from IP injection of carbon tetrachloride. Wikipedia again: "Exposure to high concentrations of carbon tetrachloride (including vapor) can affect the central nervous system, degenerate the liver[6] and kidneys[12] and may result (after prolonged exposure) in coma and even death.[13] Chronic exposure to carbon tetrachloride can cause liver[14][15] and kidney damage and could result in cancer.[16]" These "crystals" didn't prevent protection from CCl4 after very high dosing. They didn't prevent a 90% increase in lifespan after the rats had only been dosed 24 times over 30% of their normal lifespan. I'm betting those macrophages are going to clear the C60 "crystals" as they're want to do with other debris. I'm also betting that I won't build up these "crystals" to the same degree that the rats did because I won't be injecting 2.25 grams per week into my body cavity as was done with the rats. By this reasoning, and influenced by Sensei's good results as well as the 2 grams I did over a 3 month periods, I'm planning do an n=1 at a gram per month for a few years. We'll see how things go. Of course I'm unlikely to get 100% dissolution regardless of how well I grind, so in Macadamia oil I'll probably end up at ~900mg/mo. For my weight, this will roughly double that of the Baati rats on a bodyweight basis.

 

This might be too high. If, as Niner said, I "find out the hard way" I'll report my results. Fortunately I'm coming from a perspective where I've transcended the world enough that I know that the events in it aren't important. I know I'll never actually die and risk doesn't really exist, so I'm the perfect guinea pig. I'm doing C60 because I have a few projects I'd like to get done with this vehicle and trying to accomplish them in an aged state doesn't appeal. I see a lot of people around here who want longer lives. Trust me, this isn't a concern. I was a very agnostic scientific materialist, would have been an atheist, but for it's logical impossibility. I won't say much more here, but if you want to truly solve your desire for more life try "awareness watching awareness"(Langford), "the practice of presence"(Tolle), "abiding in the Self"(Nisargadatta), Dzogchen, Shikantaza or just still your mind(of "Be still and know God" fame). Seated practice is helpful, but it can be practiced during daily activities; for example while walking, showering, brushing your teeth, driving, exercising, washing dishes, etc. After practicing this technique to great effect, I studied for around 10,000 hours to comprehend the traditions it comes from. All six of those terms describe exactly the same practice, which leads, with sufficient effort and practice time, to the conclusions I've reached. No words could ever convince anyone but a credulous hippy of what I'm saying, only personal experience can do that, so back on topic.

 

Edited by yogi, 11 February 2015 - 09:44 PM.

[mikey]

 

Do we know that months or years of mega-dosing won't result in crystals that just keep growing ? 

 

 

That is a strategy I would prefer as well to mitigate the risk of homeostaasis.

 

 

We have no idea and they may keep growing, but it appears from the study that the macrophages are dealing with them.

 

Homeostasis? You're thinking it's modifying the genome? I'm betting free radical. Some kind of genomic reset might be possible, but I wouldn't know.

 

Sensei said, "as far as oral admin at 4mg/kg it is questionable to what degree.". What's the reasoning? From the look of image C in Fig 2 from Baati, the degree appears obvious, it's less than I.P., but the "crystals" are clearly there. I don't know much biology either, but Wikipedia says macrophages "are a type of white blood cell that engulfs and digests cellular debris, foreign substances, microbes, and cancer cells in a process called phagocytosis." The spleen has it's own type of macrophage, perhaps they're equipped for this. C60 may be different than what they usually deal with, but their purpose is to clear debris, including small particles, which they appear to be doing in Fig 2, images C and D. Given the outcome of the first study it seems reasonable that, had the rats not been sacrificed, the crystals in their spleens probably would have been cleared by the macrophages that had already engulfed them.

 

At worst these "crystals" seem to be much less harmful than than the accompanying better dissolved and/or adducted C60 is beneficial. And don't forget that this 4mg/kg x 7days dose(equivalent to a 165 lb man taking 9g/mo) protected the rats from IP injection of carbon tetrachloride. Wikipedia again: "Exposure to high concentrations of carbon tetrachloride (including vapor) can affect the central nervous system, degenerate the liver[6] and kidneys[12] and may result (after prolonged exposure) in coma and even death.[13] Chronic exposure to carbon tetrachloride can cause liver[14][15] and kidney damage and could result in cancer.[16]" These "crystals" didn't prevent protection from CCl4 after very high dosing. They didn't prevent a 90% increase in lifespan after the rats had only been dosed 24 times over 30% of their normal lifespan. I'm betting those macrophages are going to clear the C60 "crystals" as they're want to do with other debris. I'm also betting that I won't build up these "crystals" to the same degree that the rats did because I won't be injecting 2.25 grams per week into my body cavity as was done with the rats. By this reasoning, and influenced by Sensei's good results as well as the 2 grams I did over a 3 month periods, I'm planning do an n=1 at a gram per month for a few years. We'll see how things go. Of course I'm unlikely to get 100% dissolution regardless of how well I grind, so in Macadamia oil I'll probably end up at ~900mg/mo. For my weight, this will roughly double that of the Baati rats on a bodyweight basis.

 

This might be too high. If, as Niner said, I "find out the hard way" I'll report my results. Fortunately I'm coming from a perspective where I've transcended the world enough that I know that the events in it aren't important. I know I'll never actually die and risk doesn't really exist, so I'm the perfect guinea pig. I'm doing C60 because I have a few projects I'd like to get done with this vehicle and trying to accomplish them in an aged state doesn't appeal. I see a lot of people around here who want longer lives. Trust me, this isn't a concern. I was a very agnostic scientific materialist, would have been an atheist, but for it's logical impossibility. I won't say much more here, but if you want to truly solve your desire for more life try "awareness watching awareness"(Langford), "the practice of presence"(Tolle), "abiding in the Self"(Nisargadatta), Dzogchen, Shikantaza or just still your mind(of "Be still and know God" fame). Seated practice is helpful, but it can be practiced during daily activities; for example while walking, showering, brushing your teeth, driving, exercising, washing dishes, etc. After practicing this technique to great effect, I studied for around 10,000 hours to comprehend the traditions it comes from. All six of those terms describe exactly the same practice, which leads, with sufficient effort and practice time, to the conclusions I've reached. No words could ever convince anyone but a credulous hippy of what I'm saying, only personal experience can do that, so back on topic.

 

 

Semi-credulous hippy here applauding you (and sensei). I agree with you and sensei on everything I've read, although I haven't been paying close attention to this forum lately, so I haven't read it all.

 

I started taking 7 mg/day of C60oo in August 2012 and continued that almost uninterrupted (I ran out for a week) until I read about some people taking much more and finding grey hair regain some color. So, I upped my dose to 15 mg/day about a month ago.

 

At any rate, friends universally notice that my wrinkles have faded noticeably and people that I meet tell me that if I "dyed my hair" I'd look 40. I am 61.

 

I attach photos of my eye wrinkles from April, 2011 and another taken in January, 2015.

 

Cut to the quick if you don't agree that the lines are less deep in the 2015 photo. The lines under my eyes are most noticeably faded. Also noticed are less of the reddishness of my skin and some scars that have faded, almost to invisibility.

 

C60, to me, is easily the most effective anti-aging consumable that I've ever experienced and continue to experience.

 

Now, if mechanical stuff, injuries, car accidents or something else doesn't make me leave the planet it seems that C60oo, a progressive clean diet, exercise and some supplements might keep me around longer than it might have been.

 

Also, I've seen many hypothesis about how C60oo could cause some kind of toxicity - and from brilliant people, far more intelligent than I, but nothing I've read passes the smell test. C60oo seems to be "absolutely not toxic," to quote Dr. Moussa in the interview he gave Anthony, which is viewable at: http://c60.net/

Attached Files

•  April 7 2011 IMG_6215 eyes.jpg   65.63KB   18 downloads
•  Jan. 2015 IMG_2282 eyes.jpg   100.84KB   13 downloads

[sensei]

Sensei said, "as far as oral admin at 4mg/kg it is questionable to what degree.". What's the reasoning? From the look of image C in Fig 2 from Baati, the degree appears obvious, it's less than I.P., but the "crystals" are clearly there.

 

 

 

My reasoning is that the text in the body of the paper regarding IP and Oral administration identifies Figures 2(a-g) differently than the caption under the figure itself.

 

In the body it attributes IP administration to the figures (all of the figures that contain crystals) -- yet the caption labels differently.

 

This inconsistency, coupled with the fact that a correction paper has already been written once raises questions regarding crystal formation via Oral administration.

 

Furthermore the paper states in the body that the crystals are removed from organs -- apparently because the amount found was so small even after 7 consecutive days of injection -- the study conductors surmised that there must be a mechanism for removal.

Edited by sensei, 12 February 2015 - 01:27 PM.

[ambivalent]

Wasn't one concern of frequent c60oo dosing that it might, through the depletion of ROS, inhibit autophagy? It appears NAC supplementation has this effect on skeletal-muscle autophagy in mice:

 

In this study, we tested the hypothesis that NAC administration leads to reduced oxidative stress and thus to decreased expression of autophagy markers in young mice. Our results reveal that NAC administration results in reduced muscle mRNA levels of several autophagy markers, including Beclin-1, Atg7, LC3, Atg9, and LAMP2. However, NAC supplement fails to block the activation of skeletal muscle autophagy in response to fasting, because fasting significantly increases the mRNA level of several autophagy markers and LC3 lipidation. We further examined the effects of NAC administration on mitochondrial antioxidant capacity in fed and 24-hour fasted mice. Our results clearly show that NAC administration depresses the expression of manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD) and TP53-induced glycolysis and apoptosis regulator (TIGAR), both of which play a predominant antioxidant role in mitochondria by reducing ROS level. In addition, we found no beneficial effect of NAC supplement on muscle mass but it can protect from muscle loss in response to fasting. Collectively, our findings indicate that ROS is required for skeletal muscle constitutive autophagy, rather than starvation-induced autophagy, and that antioxidant NAC inhibits constitutive autophagy by the regulation of mitochondrial ROS production and antioxidant capacity.

 

http://www.hindawi.c...cl/2014/315896/

 

 

Edited by ambivalent, 12 February 2015 - 10:14 PM.

[aribadabar]

Wasn't one concern of frequent c60oo dosing that it might, through the depletion of ROS, inhibit autophagy? It appears NAC supplementation has this effect on skeletal-muscle autophagy in mice.

 

 Good point - the question is which is better - no/low oxidative stress ( and thus less damage) or more stress and more repair?

 If I have to pick, I'd go with no damage instead of faster fix of the (more) damage.

[pone11]

Wasn't one concern of frequent c60oo dosing that it might, through the depletion of ROS, inhibit autophagy? It appears NAC supplementation has this effect on skeletal-muscle autophagy in mice:

 

In this study, we tested the hypothesis that NAC administration leads to reduced oxidative stress and thus to decreased expression of autophagy markers in young mice. Our results reveal that NAC administration results in reduced muscle mRNA levels of several autophagy markers, including Beclin-1, Atg7, LC3, Atg9, and LAMP2. However, NAC supplement fails to block the activation of skeletal muscle autophagy in response to fasting, because fasting significantly increases the mRNA level of several autophagy markers and LC3 lipidation. We further examined the effects of NAC administration on mitochondrial antioxidant capacity in fed and 24-hour fasted mice. Our results clearly show that NAC administration depresses the expression of manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD) and TP53-induced glycolysis and apoptosis regulator (TIGAR), both of which play a predominant antioxidant role in mitochondria by reducing ROS level. In addition, we found no beneficial effect of NAC supplement on muscle mass but it can protect from muscle loss in response to fasting. Collectively, our findings indicate that ROS is required for skeletal muscle constitutive autophagy, rather than starvation-induced autophagy, and that antioxidant NAC inhibits constitutive autophagy by the regulation of mitochondrial ROS production and antioxidant capacity.

 

http://www.hindawi.c...cl/2014/315896/

 

If you raise the level of metabolites that deal with ROS, you get less oxidative damage and therefore less cell death.   We needed a study to tell us that?

 

But the study goes beyond that, and now they appear to be interjecting a second hypothesis that the specific cells that are being spared from autophagy through ROS damage are cells that should be replaced.   Where is the proof of this?   Aren't they just interjecting an arbitrary opinion or editorial into their study conclusion?

 

There is a very subtle line here between encouraging normal cell replacement of damaged cells and preventing cell damage in the first place.  If you want to propose a theory that undamaged cells *need* to be damaged in order to be replaced, that seems like a very very complex idea and would require a LOT of proof.   I didn't read your study.  Do they back up any of that hypothesis?

[Logic]

If you raise the level of metabolites that deal with ROS, you get less oxidative damage and therefore less cell death.   We needed a study to tell us that?
 
But the study goes beyond that, and now they appear to be interjecting a second hypothesis that the specific cells that are being spared from autophagy through ROS damage are cells that should be replaced.   Where is the proof of this?   Aren't they just interjecting an arbitrary opinion or editorial into their study conclusion?
 
There is a very subtle line here between encouraging normal cell replacement of damaged cells and preventing cell damage in the first place.  If you want to propose a theory that undamaged cells *need* to be damaged in order to be replaced, that seems like a very very complex idea and would require a LOT of proof.   I didn't read your study.  Do they back up any of that hypothesis?

My thoughts exactly:
If less cells are getting old and dying thanks to C60oo or NAC etc; the less need for autophagy, so obviously its going to be downregulated.

A positive change in one area of a cell is going to have positive downstream effects throughout the cell and ultimately the whole organism.
Note I said 'positive change'...!

[Logic]

From here:
http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=688775

Autophagy in immunity against mycobacterium tuberculosis: a model system to dissect immunological roles of autophagy.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19802565

"...autophagy is an immune effector of Th1/Th2 T cell response polarization-autophagy is activated by Th1 cytokines (which act in defense against intracellular pathogens) and is inhibited by Th2 cytokines (which make cells accessible to intracellular pathogens)..."

Niner:
"That's interesting. Some fullerene analogs have been shown to cause a Th2 to Th1 shift. I wonder if an upregulation of autophagy could be part of the explanation for the reported c60oo life extension effect in rats?"
http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=713176

 

I get the impression that less autophagy is required as cells are staying healthy, but that when it is required it probably happens faster/better, meaning senescent cells are going to be taken out asap?

[ambivalent]

Hi Pone11,

 

In longecity-lab you're either the guy with the clipboard, or the rat in the cage (with wifi). So it would be better to read it yourself, if you choose to, rather than rely on my cumbersome interpretation! They seem to be of the impression something new and relevant is being said.

 

If ROS flag autophagy then presumably this would be a problem if we want to recycle cells for reasons other than ROS damage (could that happen?). I seem to recall niner dosed only once a month so as still to ensure autophagy, perhaps he could comment.

 

I've been wondering wheher c60 and fasting might synergise and after reading that article, finding out what lyposomes are then digging around, discovering they are important during fasting, I wonder if there just might be. Might it be that some of the benefits of c60oo are as an indirect consequence of improved lyposome function?

 

I can understand only fragments of this:

 

http://www.cell.com/...(14)00103-2.pdf

 

but

 

'Moreover, the signals that trigger lipophagy may start from within the lysosome. The lysosome is emerging as a sensor of cellular metabolic cues.'

 

and

 

'finally drugs holding the ability to enhance lysosomal function may represent new therapies for the treatment of a variety of diseases conditions'.

 

Also, I thought Liver/longevity/rodents are tags to Baati might there be a connection with TFEB and lyposome?

 

Finally, the following would suggest, I'd have thought, C60 should indirectly improve lyposome function:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/24089192

                                         

Apologies if this is way offtrack.

 

Edited by ambivalent, 14 February 2015 - 11:21 PM.

[pone11]

 

I've been wondering wheher c60 and fasting might synergise and after reading that article, finding out what lyposomes are then digging around, discovering they are important during fasting, I wonder if there just might be. Might it be that some of the benefits of c60oo are as an indirect consequence of improved lyposome function?

 

 

That's a really interesting idea.  You could - for example - take C60 for three weeks and then not take C60 or any other antioxidant for one week and have extended fasting periods during that week.   The idea would be to maximize your autophagy during the fasting periods, and to make sure that you are not taking any antioxidants that might tend to make it difficult to kill off malfunctioning cells.

 

I'm a strong believer in having an occasional reset period for nearly every type of supplement, to let the body make adjustments and to just feel if you were getting any benefit from the supplement.  If you stop taking supplements and start feeling much better that is not a good sign.

[niner]

That's a really interesting idea.  You could - for example - take C60 for three weeks and then not take C60 or any other antioxidant for one week and have extended fasting periods during that week.   The idea would be to maximize your autophagy during the fasting periods, and to make sure that you are not taking any antioxidants that might tend to make it difficult to kill off malfunctioning cells.

 

This makes conceptual sense, but due to the long half life of c60oo, I think you would need to stretch out the off-period a lot longer, if you intend to get back to a normal redox profile.  On the other hand, we don't really know what our redox profile is when we've taken c60oo for a long time, since no one has ever measured it.  Maybe it gradually returns to baseline via anti-hormesis.  Without measuring, we don't really know.   Baati suggests that the long term effect is beneficial, but rodents aren't humans.

[pone11]

 

That's a really interesting idea.  You could - for example - take C60 for three weeks and then not take C60 or any other antioxidant for one week and have extended fasting periods during that week.   The idea would be to maximize your autophagy during the fasting periods, and to make sure that you are not taking any antioxidants that might tend to make it difficult to kill off malfunctioning cells.

 

This makes conceptual sense, but due to the long half life of c60oo, I think you would need to stretch out the off-period a lot longer, if you intend to get back to a normal redox profile.  On the other hand, we don't really know what our redox profile is when we've taken c60oo for a long time, since no one has ever measured it.  Maybe it gradually returns to baseline via anti-hormesis.  Without measuring, we don't really know.   Baati suggests that the long term effect is beneficial, but rodents aren't humans.

 

 

I thought C60 was rapidly excreted?

[niner]

I thought C60 was rapidly excreted?

 

It is rapidly cleared from blood, but part of that clearance is the c60-fatty acid adduct partitioning into membranes.  It is active at extremely low concentrations (Andrievsky has published on this at length for HyFn), low enough to be below the limit of detection of typical chromatographic methods.   Once in the membrane, possibly incorporated directly into phospholipids, the half life will be extremely long.

[ambivalent]

That's a really interesting idea.  You could - for example - take C60 for three weeks and then not take C60 or any other antioxidant for one week and have extended fasting periods during that week.   The idea would be to maximize your autophagy during the fasting periods, and to make sure that you are not taking any antioxidants that might tend to make it difficult to kill off malfunctioning cells.

 

I'm a strong believer in having an occasional reset period for nearly every type of supplement, to let the body make adjustments and to just feel if you were getting any benefit from the supplement.  If you stop taking supplements and start feeling much better that is not a good sign.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the response pone. Well I'm about a week in to what I plan to be around a two month experiment of mixing fasting-periods with quite large weekly dosing of c60. Then, I anticipate a break of a couple of months, from c60, though perhaps it would be useful to fast during that period. I'd wonder if it would be more effective to take the c60 a dozen hours or later into the fast, as it takes time for the body to get into the fasting mode (though I haven't nor won't do so myself just yet).

[pone11]

 

I thought C60 was rapidly excreted?

 

It is rapidly cleared from blood, but part of that clearance is the c60-fatty acid adduct partitioning into membranes.  It is active at extremely low concentrations (Andrievsky has published on this at length for HyFn), low enough to be below the limit of detection of typical chromatographic methods.   Once in the membrane, possibly incorporated directly into phospholipids, the half life will be extremely long.

 

 

All clear, although technically we don't know if C60 has the same half life as the phospholipid.

 

Polyfat has an average half life of about 600 days.   I calculated recently that to get 95% of the polyfat out of your tissues would be almost five years.   So your point is very good.

[sensei]

 

 

 

All clear, although technically we don't know if C60 has the same half life as the phospholipid.

 

Polyfat has an average half life of about 600 days.   I calculated recently that to get 95% of the polyfat out of your tissues would be almost five years.   So your point is very good.

 

 

Ummm -- not really.

 

In the 1940s, some of the toxic effects of fish oil (such as testicular degeneration, softening of the brain, muscle damage, and spontaneous cancer) were found to result from an induced vitamin E deficiency. Unfortunately, there isn't much reason to think that just supplementing vitamin E will provide general protection against the unsaturated fats. The half-life of fats in human adipose tissue is about 600 days, meaning that significant amounts of previously consumed oils will still be present up to four years after they have been removed from the diet.¹   - Dr. Ray Peat

 

The quote by Dr, Ray Peat is based on a study that has loads of issues.

 

Furthermore:

 

"The fat tissue is highly dynamic, and fatty acids can be mobilized, oxidized, and stored at incredible rates per needs.  The speed with which we can “burn” through fat stores is illustrated by an experiment where subjects were put through an intensive calorie-restricted, boot-camp style workout program for 8 weeks (Friedl et al., 1994).  At the study’s end the subjects’ body fat percentages fell, on average, from 14.3 percent to 5.8 percent—the lowest it can possibly go!  So, on average, about 6.5 kilograms of body fat was lost over the course of the study by the subjects, whose average starting weight was about 76 kg.  To put it another way, on average, 116 grams of body fat was lost per day. (A far cry from Dr. Peat’s estimate of 4 years.⁵)"

 

http://www.andrewkim...lf-life-of.html

[pone11]

 

 

 

 

All clear, although technically we don't know if C60 has the same half life as the phospholipid.

 

Polyfat has an average half life of about 600 days.   I calculated recently that to get 95% of the polyfat out of your tissues would be almost five years.   So your point is very good.

 

 

Ummm -- not really.

 

In the 1940s, some of the toxic effects of fish oil (such as testicular degeneration, softening of the brain, muscle damage, and spontaneous cancer) were found to result from an induced vitamin E deficiency. Unfortunately, there isn't much reason to think that just supplementing vitamin E will provide general protection against the unsaturated fats. The half-life of fats in human adipose tissue is about 600 days, meaning that significant amounts of previously consumed oils will still be present up to four years after they have been removed from the diet.¹   - Dr. Ray Peat

 

The quote by Dr, Ray Peat is based on a study that has loads of issues.

 

Furthermore:

 

"The fat tissue is highly dynamic, and fatty acids can be mobilized, oxidized, and stored at incredible rates per needs.  The speed with which we can “burn” through fat stores is illustrated by an experiment where subjects were put through an intensive calorie-restricted, boot-camp style workout program for 8 weeks (Friedl et al., 1994).  At the study’s end the subjects’ body fat percentages fell, on average, from 14.3 percent to 5.8 percent—the lowest it can possibly go!  So, on average, about 6.5 kilograms of body fat was lost over the course of the study by the subjects, whose average starting weight was about 76 kg.  To put it another way, on average, 116 grams of body fat was lost per day. (A far cry from Dr. Peat’s estimate of 4 years.⁵)"

 

http://www.andrewkim...lf-life-of.html

 

 

Nothing in your post really disputes Peat's claims with an alternate half life?  You are simply coming up with use cases to make the problem more complex, but you cannot establish knowledge until you establish facts around the simple case.    

 

Obviously people can burn off their fat stores, using the fat up.  How does that help anything here?   Do you know a lot of Americans who are went from eating a 20% polyfat diet to suddenly eating a 2% polyfat diet, and then simultaneously went on a starvation and exercise binge to bring their body stores down to 5%?  I mean that describes 1% of the population.  How does it add value here?   Just because you can conjure up hypothetical scenarios doesn't mean you are describing anything useful to an average case.

 

What about the person whose fat stores are stable, who has 20% of his fat stores as polyfat?    How quickly will that person change out their polyfat stores if they change only their diet?

 

The source you quote is nothing more than nitpicking at Peat, offering lots of doubts but in the end he doesn't even offer up a specific calculation in competition.   His final remarks are "So how much time does it actually take to fully renew our fat tissue?  I can’t say for sure because there are too many variables involved in the complex machine that is the human body."   He thinks it is less than four years without saying how much less.   Great.  I don't think it added to this discussion.

 

Say it's three years instead of four.   How does it change Niner's very good point?  If C60 incorporates into lipid structures, C60 might be around in your body for many years.

[sensei]

 

Nothing in your post really disputes Peat's claims with an alternate half life?  You are simply coming up with use cases to make the problem more complex, but you cannot establish knowledge until you establish facts around the simple case.    

 

Obviously people can burn off their fat stores, using the fat up.  How does that help anything here?   Do you know a lot of Americans who are went from eating a 20% polyfat diet to suddenly eating a 2% polyfat diet, and then simultaneously went on a starvation and exercise binge to bring their body stores down to 5%?  I mean that describes 1% of the population.  How does it add value here?   Just because you can conjure up hypothetical scenarios doesn't mean you are describing anything useful to an average case.

 

What about the person whose fat stores are stable, who has 20% of his fat stores as polyfat?    How quickly will that person change out their polyfat stores if they change only their diet?

 

The source you quote is nothing more than nitpicking at Peat, offering lots of doubts but in the end he doesn't even offer up a specific calculation in competition.   His final remarks are "So how much time does it actually take to fully renew our fat tissue?  I can’t say for sure because there are too many variables involved in the complex machine that is the human body."   He thinks it is less than four years without saying how much less.   Great.  I don't think it added to this discussion.

 

Say it's three years instead of four.   How does it change Niner's very good point?  If C60 incorporates into lipid structures, C60 might be around in your body for many years.

 

 

1. I respectfully disagree. Ray Peat used a poorly designed and executed study done in 1946 as the basis for his 600 days. (which didn't actually say 600 days)

 

2. Overall mass of fat stores may be stable, but the composition of fat in any adipose cell is not. Adipose cells are not first-in last out, or even last-in first out. Multiple types of FA are stored in adipose tissue, and no particular percentage of MUFAS, PUFAS, or SFAS are released at any given time. 

 

Furthermore PUFAS ( alpha linoleic and linoleic acid) are necessary and essential to human metabolism.  Try going without them and watch your hair fall out and your skin become compromised.

 

I never made a statement regarding how long C60 may stay in the membrane, just that a 600 day half-life for ingested PUFAS bears no resemblance to known biochemical processes of the human body that have been elucidated since 1946.

Edited by sensei, 18 February 2015 - 01:06 AM.

[niner]

I'm not sure that adipose tissue consumption rates have much to do with the composition of membranes and how quickly that changes.  When we are fasting, we don't burn our membranes for energy-- If we did, we'd be dead in a hurry.  These are two very different categories of lipids.

[pone11]

 

1. I respectfully disagree. Ray Peat used a poorly designed and executed study done in 1946 as the basis for his 600 days. (which didn't actually say 600 days)

 

2. Overall mass of fat stores may be stable, but the composition of fat in any adipose cell is not. Adipose cells are not first-in last out, or even last-in first out. Multiple types of FA are stored in adipose tissue, and no particular percentage of MUFAS, PUFAS, or SFAS are released at any given time. 

 

Furthermore PUFAS ( alpha linoleic and linoleic acid) are necessary and essential to human metabolism.  Try going without them and watch your hair fall out and your skin become compromised.

 

I never made a statement regarding how long C60 may stay in the membrane, just that a 600 day half-life for ingested PUFAS bears no resemblance to known biochemical processes of the human body that have been elucidated since 1946.

 

 

PUFAs are essential, but no one in this conversation ever said you shouldn't eat ANY of those fats.  Why do you bring that up?

 

I don't think any source you quoted proved the claim that "a 600 day half-life for ingested PUFAs bears no resemblance to known biochemical processes of the human body...."    Your own source said he couldn't get a number.  

 

What is your estimate for the half life of polyunsaturated fat?   At the end of the day, give us a credible number, not just a lot of hand waving about why Ray Peat's number is not great.  What's your number?  

 

Your source only implies that the right number is less than four years.  Fine.  Is it three?  Is it two?  Why is your number better than Peat's?   Can you prove it?

 

If the number is two years, then Niner's point is still valid.   

 

I don't have any need to defend Peat's point on half life.  But I don't think you have given us better information.  I accept that Peat's number is not precise and different people will argue it it higher or lower than some number based on more recent experiments.

 

Edited by pone11, 18 February 2015 - 08:08 AM.