3585 replies to this topic

[YOLF]

I thought she had reported eating onions regularly. Wouldn't she have known that it was the sliced onions causing the burning eyes? Onion burn doesn't last very long either.

Edited by cryonicsculture, 18 April 2013 - 03:32 AM.

[brainerd]

Hello!

Nothing seems to happen here anymore, so I decided to upload a couple of photos of 500 ml olive oil with 340 mg C60, before and after a 1.5 day of magnetic stirring.

My experience of taking betweeen 3.4 mg to 13.6 mg a day is that I get calmer more focused and more resilient to stress. I have been on it so far for about two weeks.

I was not familiar with how to post images, so here comes two more pictures.

Attached Files

•  DSC00275.JPG   69.37KB   29 downloads
•  DSC00277.JPG   90.67KB   36 downloads
•  DSC00281.JPG   98.12KB   34 downloads

[Hebbeh]

How would this compare to the C60/EVOO adduct?

http://www.solarisch...om/WSC60_1.html

[niner]

How would this compare to the C60/EVOO adduct?

http://www.solarisch...om/WSC60_1.html

They're fairly different. This one has a fused-ring attachment that is short and positively charged. I don't think anyone knows the exact structure, or more likely, structures of the c60-oo adducts. We can make some educated guesses about it, though. It's almost certainly a fatty acid adduct, which means that the attachment(s) is/are long and negatively charged. Since it starts out as a glycerol triester, it will need to get hydrolyzed to separate the adduct from the glycerol, but digestive lipases should make short work of that. There are probably two fatty acids bound to the c60, although some fraction of them may have more or fewer substituents. Since olive oil has several different fatty acids, and there are a several different mechanisms in which they could bind to c60, there is probably some diversity in the adducts, both in the identity of the fatty acid and in the nature of attachment. In addition, different regio-isomers are possible for bis- or higher adducts. There might be a single structure that dominates, though, because chromatograms show a single peak. That might represent multiple peaks that elute at or near the same time, though.

[mait]

Sorry about OT but I wanted to share my synergistic experience between C60 and melatonin and potassium bicarbonate. I dose C60 3 days a week 1.5mg per day (SV blend) and I did notice some drop-off in effectiveness in 3 months. But at least for me it seems that daily 10mg melatonin and 10-15g potassium bicarbonate seem to have restored the edge of C60. I do not know what to make of it but I thought it might be worth sharing.

[Adamzski]

I have some on its way now, was going to get back on 1.5mg per day at least for the first month.

1.5mg per day a good dose? what about 10mg once per week instead?

[tintinet]

I have some on its way now, was going to get back on 1.5mg per day at least for the first month.

1.5mg per day a good dose? what about 10mg once per week instead?

As I'm sure you know, your guess is as good as anyone's regarding dosages and intervals, as there are zero studies of human use of this substance.

[YOLF]

Maybe it's time to make the human trial. Lots of people are taking it, we know it's safe in the short term, let's solicit volunteers who may not have taken it or heard of it yet. How would we go about determining the study parameters? Obviously the participants would be volunteering to buy the stuff as well. Good insurances will allow around $500-1000 in elective testing per year that most won't otherwise use. Perhaps we can determine eligibility based on insurance?

I just started a dedicated thread here:
http://www.longecity...60-human-trial/

[Adamzski]

I think I will go back on the 1.5mg per day. I am untrained right now and moderately unfit. Don't have much cash but I am in Korea where tests etc would be cheaper.
Is there anything useful that I could do to try and measure changes?
I want to get back into the gym and have been quite strong in the past so I expect gains to come fast there and I would not be able to determine anything from this.

[tintinet]

I think I will go back on the 1.5mg per day. I am untrained right now and moderately unfit. Don't have much cash but I am in Korea where tests etc would be cheaper.
Is there anything useful that I could do to try and measure changes?
I want to get back into the gym and have been quite strong in the past so I expect gains to come fast there and I would not be able to determine anything from this.

Telomere length assay, if you can swing it, might be helpful.

[JamesNV]

Hi there, I wanted to report my experiences. I was initially interested in C60 because of the longevity claims, but in December I finally decided to order based on the hair regrowth claims made by Mikey. (Kind of funny how vanity trumps longevity!) I also bought the Jarrows Toco-Sorb and began taking it at the same time (after a bit of research). I am happy to report that my hair is growing back. My hair had receded to the point where it was noticeable, but not much more than that. The regrowth is slow, so even though my hair was only slightly receded, it will probably take another year or longer before my hair is fully restored (assuming the trend continues). But it is already a vast improvement. There is hair where there was none before, so even though it is still thin, it looks much better.

I don't notice much else about C60, and it is entirely possible I am seeing the effects of Toco-Sorb alone. In fact, I suspect that is the case. However, I am going to continue taking C60 due to the potential longevity effects. (And besides, why mess with a good thing?) Sorry that I can't contribute a more unambiguous result.

James
(40 years old)

[Adamzski]

I think I will go back on the 1.5mg per day. I am untrained right now and moderately unfit. Don't have much cash but I am in Korea where tests etc would be cheaper.
Is there anything useful that I could do to try and measure changes?
I want to get back into the gym and have been quite strong in the past so I expect gains to come fast there and I would not be able to determine anything from this.

Telomere length assay, if you can swing it, might be helpful.

Thanks, so that I can get an idea of if this is out of my reach, what would it cost in the USA?

[mikey]

Hi there, I wanted to report my experiences. I was initially interested in C60 because of the longevity claims, but in December I finally decided to order based on the hair regrowth claims made by Mikey. (Kind of funny how vanity trumps longevity!) I also bought the Jarrows Toco-Sorb and began taking it at the same time (after a bit of research). I am happy to report that my hair is growing back. My hair had receded to the point where it was noticeable, but not much more than that. The regrowth is slow, so even though my hair was only slightly receded, it will probably take another year or longer before my hair is fully restored (assuming the trend continues). But it is already a vast improvement. There is hair where there was none before, so even though it is still thin, it looks much better.

I don't notice much else about C60, and it is entirely possible I am seeing the effects of Toco-Sorb alone. In fact, I suspect that is the case. However, I am going to continue taking C60 due to the potential longevity effects. (And besides, why mess with a good thing?) Sorry that I can't contribute a more unambiguous result.

James
(40 years old)

Nice to hear of your success! And if I were you, I'd take both. C60 definitely reduced the depth of wrinkles on my face as well as fading two distinct scars. No doubt my collagen is healthier.

You might do some other things if you read my page on growing hair back at: http://www.michaelmooney.net/hair.html - Maybe use Nizoral shampoo a couple times a week and check your ferritin blood level to see if you have enough iron for healthy hair.

Low body stores of iron are associated with hair loss.

So here's a new twist. A vitamin D analog that is reported to grow hair back.
http://saypeople.com.../#axzz2SRgJZsMR

Here's the case report - http://www.ncbi.nlm....f/ad-24-341.pdf

A doctor can prescribe it as a prescription called Daivonex, 50 ug/mL (calcipotriol).

There are numerous sources of another version on the net, sold as non-prescription Dovonex, such as https://www.northwes...ovonex ointment which is not just calcipotriol - also containing calcipotriene. I don't know what differences might there be.

Maybe one of the chemists here can chime in and provide details.

Michael

Edited by mikey, 06 May 2013 - 05:38 AM.

[Iporuru]

Hi there, I wanted to report my experiences. I was initially interested in C60 because of the longevity claims, but in December I finally decided to order based on the hair regrowth claims made by Mikey. (Kind of funny how vanity trumps longevity!) I also bought the Jarrows Toco-Sorb and began taking it at the same time (after a bit of research). I am happy to report that my hair is growing back. My hair had receded to the point where it was noticeable, but not much more than that. The regrowth is slow, so even though my hair was only slightly receded, it will probably take another year or longer before my hair is fully restored (assuming the trend continues). But it is already a vast improvement. There is hair where there was none before, so even though it is still thin, it looks much better.

I don't notice much else about C60, and it is entirely possible I am seeing the effects of Toco-Sorb alone. In fact, I suspect that is the case. However, I am going to continue taking C60 due to the potential longevity effects. (And besides, why mess with a good thing?) Sorry that I can't contribute a more unambiguous result.

James
(40 years old)

Hi James,
Did you ingest C60 or rub it on the skin topically (or both)?

[smithx]

So here's a new twist. A vitamin D analog that is reported to grow hair back.
http://saypeople.com.../#axzz2SRgJZsMR

Here's the case report - http://www.ncbi.nlm....f/ad-24-341.pdf

That study is dealing with alopecia areata.

Alopecia areata has nothing to do with male pattern baldness.

[JamesNV]

Hi James,
Did you ingest C60 or rub it on the skin topically (or both)?

Ingested.

I did use Nizoral as well at first, which cleared up a mild dandruff problem. Seemed to make my hair dry out so I stopped using it.

[tintinet]

I think I will go back on the 1.5mg per day. I am untrained right now and moderately unfit. Don't have much cash but I am in Korea where tests etc would be cheaper.
Is there anything useful that I could do to try and measure changes?
I want to get back into the gym and have been quite strong in the past so I expect gains to come fast there and I would not be able to determine anything from this.

Telomere length assay, if you can swing it, might be helpful.

Thanks, so that I can get an idea of if this is out of my reach, what would it cost in the USA?

In a quick search, I found a quote for $490, but I don't know if that's a standard or competitive rate.

[niner]

I think I will go back on the 1.5mg per day. I am untrained right now and moderately unfit. Don't have much cash but I am in Korea where tests etc would be cheaper.
Is there anything useful that I could do to try and measure changes?
I want to get back into the gym and have been quite strong in the past so I expect gains to come fast there and I would not be able to determine anything from this.

Telomere length assay, if you can swing it, might be helpful.

Thanks, so that I can get an idea of if this is out of my reach, what would it cost in the USA?

In a quick search, I found a quote for $490, but I don't know if that's a standard or competitive rate.

There's a new startup caled Telome that will do an average length test for $149, and a length distribution assay for $349. If you contribute to their kickstarter (or one of those crowd funding sites) campaign, you can get the tests for $89 and $289. Mind just interviewed Preston Estep, the head of Telome, where this was talked about. The podcast was posted just the other day. I don't know what Telome's level of variation between tests might be, but other companies are +/- half a kilobase. If C60 would do anything for telomeres, I'd expect it to slow the rate of shortening. To see if this is happening, you would need three tests- two prior to starting c60 and one after using it for some time. Given the error rate, you'd probably want to wait at least a year, or maybe longer between tests.

[YOLF]

Perhaps we could ask Telome to send emails or letters out to their customers at one year and two years for another test and then an advertisement for C60 with next. It's a three year plan, but it could turn up some good data. Especially if we find some good info from the C60 human trials and can use that to motivate the Telome customer base. Telome would get more revenue from tests this way, so Imagine they would be on board.

[mikey]

Hi James,
Did you ingest C60 or rub it on the skin topically (or both)?

Ingested.

I did use Nizoral as well at first, which cleared up a mild dandruff problem. Seemed to make my hair dry out so I stopped using it.

Nizoral seems to work when only used 2 - 3 times a week.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18498517

How often were you using it?

[blueinfinity]

searched but couldnt find results,

whats the general consensus for the best source?

[Turnbuckle]

Perhaps we could ask Telome to send emails or letters out to their customers at one year and two years for another test and then an advertisement for C60 with next. It's a three year plan, but it could turn up some good data. Especially if we find some good info from the C60 human trials and can use that to motivate the Telome customer base. Telome would get more revenue from tests this way, so Imagine they would be on board.

I must have missed something. Is there any evidence that C60 gets into the nucleus, much less lengthens telomeres? All the evidence I've seen to date points to an enhancement of mitochondrial function, and mitochondrial DNA has no telomeres. So not to say it's impossible, but it seems unlikely.

[YOLF]

They were talking about getting a measurement for a change in the rate of telomere shortening. No one has said anything about them getting longer. Now that I think about it though, it is possible that there are people on Telomere lengthening supplements who are also using C60. This might show a greater rate of increase due to a decrease in the rate of shortening if that is what we discover. I imagine telomere shortening rates must have been slowed considering the results of the rat trials. Rats burn through telomeres very quickly and die of diseases related to short telomeres IIRC. Is that right?

[free10]

Perhaps we could ask Telome to send emails or letters out to their customers at one year and two years for another test and then an advertisement for C60 with next. It's a three year plan, but it could turn up some good data. Especially if we find some good info from the C60 human trials and can use that to motivate the Telome customer base. Telome would get more revenue from tests this way, so Imagine they would be on board.

I must have missed something. Is there any evidence that C60 gets into the nucleus, much less lengthens telomeres? All the evidence I've seen to date points to an enhancement of mitochondrial function, and mitochondrial DNA has no telomeres. So not to say it's impossible, but it seems unlikely.

Telomeres seem to shorten by two processes. One is on division and the second from ROS or free radicals, and since C60 may block much of the ROS or free radical damage it may result in longer than normal telomeres, at least over time. This might be the explanation of longer lived mice getting C60-oo. Of course what all C60-00 does or doesn't do and how we don't know.

[Turnbuckle]

Perhaps we could ask Telome to send emails or letters out to their customers at one year and two years for another test and then an advertisement for C60 with next. It's a three year plan, but it could turn up some good data. Especially if we find some good info from the C60 human trials and can use that to motivate the Telome customer base. Telome would get more revenue from tests this way, so Imagine they would be on board.

I must have missed something. Is there any evidence that C60 gets into the nucleus, much less lengthens telomeres? All the evidence I've seen to date points to an enhancement of mitochondrial function, and mitochondrial DNA has no telomeres. So not to say it's impossible, but it seems unlikely.

Telomeres seem to shorten by two processes. One is on division and the second from ROS or free radicals, and since C60 may block much of the ROS or free radical damage it may result in longer than normal telomeres, at least over time. This might be the explanation of longer lived mice getting C60-oo. Of course what all C60-00 does or doesn't do and how we don't know.

Longer telomeres are an unlikely explanation for the longer lifespans of the treated rats, as rats have far more telomere length than they need. Enough for several lifetimes. The lengths vary quite a bit, but the length doesn't translate into longer lifespans.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 08 May 2013 - 08:52 PM.

[Methos000]

If C60 would do anything for telomeres, I'd expect it to slow the rate of shortening. To see if this is happening, you would need three tests- two prior to starting c60 and one after using it for some time. Given the error rate, you'd probably want to wait at least a year, or maybe longer between tests.

I agree, reducing oxidative stress dramatically could and probably should slow the rate of telomere erosion. Telomerase positive cells could even possibly gain repeats. There may be a braking mechanism on such extension, however.

[Methos000]

Perhaps we could ask Telome to send emails or letters out to their customers at one year and two years for another test and then an advertisement for C60 with next. It's a three year plan, but it could turn up some good data. Especially if we find some good info from the C60 human trials and can use that to motivate the Telome customer base. Telome would get more revenue from tests this way, so Imagine they would be on board.

I must have missed something. Is there any evidence that C60 gets into the nucleus, much less lengthens telomeres? All the evidence I've seen to date points to an enhancement of mitochondrial function, and mitochondrial DNA has no telomeres. So not to say it's impossible, but it seems unlikely.

Telomeres seem to shorten by two processes. One is on division and the second from ROS or free radicals, and since C60 may block much of the ROS or free radical damage it may result in longer than normal telomeres, at least over time. This might be the explanation of longer lived mice getting C60-oo. Of course what all C60-00 does or doesn't do and how we don't know.

Longer telomeres are an unlikely explanation for the longer lifespans of the treated rats, as rats have far more telomere length than they need. Enough for several lifetimes. The lengths vary quite a bit, but the length doesn't translate into longer lifespans.

The strong telomere hypothesis states that absolute telomere length is irrelevant; relative loss of length since conception is what counts, at least so far as aging due to the telomere position effect is concerned. I would think that a short absolute length would still cause a mouse cell to experience replicative senescence. There are causes other than very short telomeres for cellular senescence in mice, obviously.

[free10]

Perhaps we could ask Telome to send emails or letters out to their customers at one year and two years for another test and then an advertisement for C60 with next. It's a three year plan, but it could turn up some good data. Especially if we find some good info from the C60 human trials and can use that to motivate the Telome customer base. Telome would get more revenue from tests this way, so Imagine they would be on board.

I must have missed something. Is there any evidence that C60 gets into the nucleus, much less lengthens telomeres? All the evidence I've seen to date points to an enhancement of mitochondrial function, and mitochondrial DNA has no telomeres. So not to say it's impossible, but it seems unlikely.

Telomeres seem to shorten by two processes. One is on division and the second from ROS or free radicals, and since C60 may block much of the ROS or free radical damage it may result in longer than normal telomeres, at least over time. This might be the explanation of longer lived mice getting C60-oo. Of course what all C60-00 does or doesn't do and how we don't know.

Longer telomeres are an unlikely explanation for the longer lifespans of the treated rats, as rats have far more telomere length than they need. Enough for several lifetimes. The lengths vary quite a bit, but the length doesn't translate into longer lifespans.

They may look longer than needed but telomeres systems do not all shorten at the same rate, and if any get too short death can follow. Those telomeres control gene expressions and long before the cells sense the telomeres are too short and shut it down the very genetic code of what to do is changing. Unchanged and the cells and organism rocks on. The mice received C60 for about a year if I remember right and when they stopped getting it lived for about another year, if I remember right. I propose time stood still for them from the time they started until it was taken away, then the clock started running again and ran down over that last year or so. Call me crazy but it seems obvious.

Some telomere systems may have been better protected too than others. Notice at no time did they develop the usual tumors seen in them by the time they died. This would say to me the system that normally shortens faster causing tumors was better protected than other telomere systems, so not all clocks were totally stopped or almost stopped.

[Turnbuckle]

Perhaps we could ask Telome to send emails or letters out to their customers at one year and two years for another test and then an advertisement for C60 with next. It's a three year plan, but it could turn up some good data. Especially if we find some good info from the C60 human trials and can use that to motivate the Telome customer base. Telome would get more revenue from tests this way, so Imagine they would be on board.

I must have missed something. Is there any evidence that C60 gets into the nucleus, much less lengthens telomeres? All the evidence I've seen to date points to an enhancement of mitochondrial function, and mitochondrial DNA has no telomeres. So not to say it's impossible, but it seems unlikely.

Telomeres seem to shorten by two processes. One is on division and the second from ROS or free radicals, and since C60 may block much of the ROS or free radical damage it may result in longer than normal telomeres, at least over time. This might be the explanation of longer lived mice getting C60-oo. Of course what all C60-00 does or doesn't do and how we don't know.

Longer telomeres are an unlikely explanation for the longer lifespans of the treated rats, as rats have far more telomere length than they need. Enough for several lifetimes. The lengths vary quite a bit, but the length doesn't translate into longer lifespans.

The strong telomere hypothesis states that absolute telomere length is irrelevant; relative loss of length since conception is what counts, at least so far as aging due to the telomere position effect is concerned. I would think that a short absolute length would still cause a mouse cell to experience replicative senescence. There are causes other than very short telomeres for cellular senescence in mice, obviously.

Mice have had their telomerase system shut down by genetic manipulation and still had enough telomere length to reproduce for several generations before running into a wall. So it can't be telomeres in the C60 study. There is also something called the mitochondrial theory of aging, which explains the Baati results better. First of all, the mitochondria are awash with ROS, so a good antioxidant would make the biggest difference there, and second, it's possible that C60 is acting epigenetically on the mtDNA, rejuvenating mitochondria that have picked up erroneous methyl groups, shutting down essential genes. There is some anecdotal evidence for that with the self-experimenters who see effects that could best be explained by activation of stem cells. Stem cells, like cancer cells, have quiescent mitochondria. Once you get them burning oxygen by removing those epigenetic markers--the methyl groups--they are differentiated into somatic cells.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 08 May 2013 - 10:01 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

Perhaps we could ask Telome to send emails or letters out to their customers at one year and two years for another test and then an advertisement for C60 with next. It's a three year plan, but it could turn up some good data. Especially if we find some good info from the C60 human trials and can use that to motivate the Telome customer base. Telome would get more revenue from tests this way, so Imagine they would be on board.

I must have missed something. Is there any evidence that C60 gets into the nucleus, much less lengthens telomeres? All the evidence I've seen to date points to an enhancement of mitochondrial function, and mitochondrial DNA has no telomeres. So not to say it's impossible, but it seems unlikely.

Telomeres seem to shorten by two processes. One is on division and the second from ROS or free radicals, and since C60 may block much of the ROS or free radical damage it may result in longer than normal telomeres, at least over time. This might be the explanation of longer lived mice getting C60-oo. Of course what all C60-00 does or doesn't do and how we don't know.

Longer telomeres are an unlikely explanation for the longer lifespans of the treated rats, as rats have far more telomere length than they need. Enough for several lifetimes. The lengths vary quite a bit, but the length doesn't translate into longer lifespans.

They may look longer than needed but telomeres systems do not all shorten at the same rate, and if any get too short death can follow. Those telomeres control gene expressions and long before the cells sense the telomeres are too short and shut it down the very genetic code of what to do is changing. Unchanged and the cells and organism rocks on. The mice received C60 for about a year if I remember right and when they stopped getting it lived for about another year, if I remember right. I propose time stood still for them from the time they started until it was taken away, then the clock started running again and ran down over that last year or so. Call me crazy but it seems obvious.

Some telomere systems may have been better protected too than others. Notice at no time did they develop the usual tumors seen in them by the time they died. This would say to me the system that normally shortens faster causing tumors was better protected than other telomere systems, so not all clocks were totally stopped or almost stopped.

The mice received C60 for six months and then lived a good deal longer than that compared to the control mice--20 extra months. And telomeres do not control the lifespans of rats and mice, as I pointed out in my last post. You can knock out the telomerase gene entirely and mice will still produce several more generations before their telomeres get too short. Even in humans, telomere length isn't that predictive of age, as can be seen from the graph below Sure, there is a trend, but obviously there are other mechanisms of aging. Such as with the mitochondria.

Attached Files

•  telomere_graph1.jpg   51.84KB   3 downloads

Edited by Turnbuckle, 08 May 2013 - 10:22 PM.