3585 replies to this topic

[Kenbar]

Younger...be nice, but no, personally I don`t think that will ever be possible. Dramatically slow down or better stop aging,...yes. Slow down is perhaps the best I/we can hope for the time being I believe. While it would be very interesting should C60 prove to be effective in the war against cancer of course, I am hoping for something more. Same as I believe everyone here is. And also the 3 mice experiment by our member here seemed to show that it did not prevent cancers in mice when started past mid life...such as with a big rat like myself...(57)
 
I want to be looking about the same, feeling about the same at 150... At the very least be chasing those fast wheelchair gals in the nursing homes...and having some luck.
 
I expect, that to stop aging,...the government/governments would have to mount a huge effort along the lines of that not seen since the development of the A bomb during WW2....if it is even possible (I want to think it can be done).
 
C60 offers a whole new hope...totally uncharted territory. I don`t believe natural "cures to aging" are the ticket as we don`t have anyone/groups living beyond the 100 mark in general. I think we would already have "discovered" eternal life if it was to be found certain foods/waters ect. But I also see C60oo as a long shot...based on one unrepeated study. But I`ll hold on to any hope...for the moment. Just want to stay/be realistic about the chances....

 
C60 is utilized by cell mitochondria. Much like a larger organism, a cell must process fuel and excrete waste accumulated within it. The mitochondria creates energy in the form of ATP, adenosine triphosphate. The mitochondria also play roles in such processes as cell-differentiation, and cell life cycle. As we get older, our cells perform these tasks less and less efficiently. Eventually, there is build-up of toxic materials within the cells, which are not being released properly. These are called free radicals, or, oxidized material. The C60 molecules are able to penetrate the mitochondria cell membrane, and once inside, can bond with and excrete the cell waste, which essentially makes the cell operate as if it were far more youthful. (***This is from an article I am writing on C60). Some scientific papers can be read here:
 
http://www.planettec...n-a-small-study
 
http://www.hindawi.c...ri/2013/821498/
 
So, yes, C60 is a powerful adaptogen/facilitator

I`ll throw out a little worry, built around this very good concept.

Let`s say the cell is like a yard. Clutter (paper, dead leaves, maybe a Mcdonalds coffee cup) ends up in the yard. All cells have clutter collectors...they run around the yard and pick up the trash and eject them from the cell. As we age, the new yards (new cells) start to have lazy clutter collectors. Every new generation of workers is lazier than the one before it...like humans. Eventually, they mostly just hang around dreaming of their retirement pensions...don`t want to work.

Now along comes something new...nice big garbage cans. Really nice ones that roll around the yard and grab up most the clutter. Happy days for both the yard and the lazy clutter collectors. Yard looks great, clean.

But there is a problem. As the years go by the garbage cans themselves, are filling up the yards. The lazy clutter collectors have a hard time getting them out of the cell, they are big and difficult to eject and tend to damage the fence/ gate forcing them out.

So what seemed like an awesome thing for years...ends up being a disaster down the road.

Could it be there is marked short term gain...but as it is repeated...the gain is steadily diminished...and down the road, a major problem as cells fill up with these large Bucky balls?

Could it be that if started on c60 at a younger age...the clutter collectors might adapt. Learn a new trade...become skilled garbage men. Forget clutter pick up...the high tech C60 garbage cans do that...all they have to do now is pick up the garbage cans when full and get them out of the yard (cell)? And perhaps ask for a raise? Better nutrition...

 
Liked the yard analogy... thought of stealing it for my article. Just kidding! Anyway, if I'm getting your point, you are assuming that the C60 molecules remain inside the cell. However, if they are "bonding" with the waste, then they are essentially pulling it out of the cell along with themselves. So, the new garbage cans do not just pile up in the yard, accumulating detritus, they become "one" with the waste, and exit the cell along with it. Pretty nifty if it truly works that way. One stark fact remains like a big fly stuck in the pudding. There are people with perfect habits who die youngish, and then there are people like Jean Clement who lived to be 123, only having given up cigarettes at 117! She also ate mounds of chocolate, drank, and was distainful of Vincent Van Gogh whom she met a few times. Wow. Where is the logic or sceince here? We have to look beyong mere cell biology to understand. I am getting more and more clear about C60 and I believe its worthwhile to consume it.

"Calment ascribed her longevity and relatively youthful appearance for her age to a diet rich in olive oil,[4] and rubbed onto her skin, as well as a diet of port wine, and ate nearly one kilogram (2.2 lb) of chocolate every week. Calment reportedly remained mentally intact until her very end.[4]

http://en.wikipedia..../Jeanne_Calment

Sorry it took so long to respond...busy dousing myself with olive oil and poping Resveratrol pills as I don`t have any Port wine handy. And it`s hard to eat chocolate ice cream with these oily hands...and type at the same time. But anyways, anyone have a cigarette I can have?

Ok, kidding aside, so...she was big on olive oil (both internally and rubbed on)...and the wine probably was giving her resveratrol...and dark chocolate is known to have some health benefits as well. Would be interesting if she liked her meats well done...think C60 can be found in burnt meats (chard over open flame). She was not big on exercise, but did some moderate exercises...stayed moderately active.

Younger...be nice, but no, personally I don`t think that will ever be possible. Dramatically slow down or better stop aging,...yes. Slow down is perhaps the best I/we can hope for the time being I believe. While it would be very interesting should C60 prove to be effective in the war against cancer of course, I am hoping for something more. Same as I believe everyone here is. And also the 3 mice experiment by our member here seemed to show that it did not prevent cancers in mice when started past mid life...such as with a big rat like myself...(57)
 
I want to be looking about the same, feeling about the same at 150... At the very least be chasing those fast wheelchair gals in the nursing homes...and having some luck.
 
I expect, that to stop aging,...the government/governments would have to mount a huge effort along the lines of that not seen since the development of the A bomb during WW2....if it is even possible (I want to think it can be done).
 
C60 offers a whole new hope...totally uncharted territory. I don`t believe natural "cures to aging" are the ticket as we don`t have anyone/groups living beyond the 100 mark in general. I think we would already have "discovered" eternal life if it was to be found certain foods/waters ect. But I also see C60oo as a long shot...based on one unrepeated study. But I`ll hold on to any hope...for the moment. Just want to stay/be realistic about the chances....

 
C60 is utilized by cell mitochondria. Much like a larger organism, a cell must process fuel and excrete waste accumulated within it. The mitochondria creates energy in the form of ATP, adenosine triphosphate. The mitochondria also play roles in such processes as cell-differentiation, and cell life cycle. As we get older, our cells perform these tasks less and less efficiently. Eventually, there is build-up of toxic materials within the cells, which are not being released properly. These are called free radicals, or, oxidized material. The C60 molecules are able to penetrate the mitochondria cell membrane, and once inside, can bond with and excrete the cell waste, which essentially makes the cell operate as if it were far more youthful. (***This is from an article I am writing on C60). Some scientific papers can be read here:
 
http://www.planettec...n-a-small-study
 
http://www.hindawi.c...ri/2013/821498/
 
So, yes, C60 is a powerful adaptogen/facilitator

I`ll throw out a little worry, built around this very good concept.

Let`s say the cell is like a yard. Clutter (paper, dead leaves, maybe a Mcdonalds coffee cup) ends up in the yard. All cells have clutter collectors...they run around the yard and pick up the trash and eject them from the cell. As we age, the new yards (new cells) start to have lazy clutter collectors. Every new generation of workers is lazier than the one before it...like humans. Eventually, they mostly just hang around dreaming of their retirement pensions...don`t want to work.

Now along comes something new...nice big garbage cans. Really nice ones that roll around the yard and grab up most the clutter. Happy days for both the yard and the lazy clutter collectors. Yard looks great, clean.

But there is a problem. As the years go by the garbage cans themselves, are filling up the yards. The lazy clutter collectors have a hard time getting them out of the cell, they are big and difficult to eject and tend to damage the fence/ gate forcing them out.

So what seemed like an awesome thing for years...ends up being a disaster down the road.

Could it be there is marked short term gain...but as it is repeated...the gain is steadily diminished...and down the road, a major problem as cells fill up with these large Bucky balls?

Could it be that if started on c60 at a younger age...the clutter collectors might adapt. Learn a new trade...become skilled garbage men. Forget clutter pick up...the high tech C60 garbage cans do that...all they have to do now is pick up the garbage cans when full and get them out of the yard (cell)? And perhaps ask for a raise? Better nutrition...

 
Liked the yard analogy... thought of stealing it for my article. Just kidding! Anyway, if I'm getting your point, you are assuming that the C60 molecules remain inside the cell. However, if they are "bonding" with the waste, then they are essentially pulling it out of the cell along with themselves. So, the new garbage cans do not just pile up in the yard, accumulating detritus, they become "one" with the waste, and exit the cell along with it. Pretty nifty if it truly works that way. One stark fact remains like a big fly stuck in the pudding. There are people with perfect habits who die youngish, and then there are people like Jean Clement who lived to be 123, only having given up cigarettes at 117! She also ate mounds of chocolate, drank, and was distainful of Vincent Van Gogh whom she met a few times. Wow. Where is the logic or sceince here? We have to look beyong mere cell biology to understand. I am getting more and more clear about C60 and I believe its worthwhile to consume it.

"Calment ascribed her longevity and relatively youthful appearance for her age to a diet rich in olive oil,[4] and rubbed onto her skin, as well as a diet of port wine, and ate nearly one kilogram (2.2 lb) of chocolate every week. Calment reportedly remained mentally intact until her very end.[4]

http://en.wikipedia..../Jeanne_Calment

Sorry it took so long to respond...busy dousing myself with olive oil and poping Resveratrol pills as I don`t have any Port wine handy. And it`s hard to eat chocolate ice cream with these oily hands...and type at the same time. But anyways, anyone have a cigarette I can have?

Ok, kidding aside, so...she was big on olive oil (both internally and rubbed on)...and the wine probably was giving her resveratrol...and dark chocolate is known to have some health benefits as well. Would be interesting if she liked her meats well done...think C60 can be found in burnt meats (chard over open flame). She was not big on exercise, but did some moderate exercises...stayed moderately active.

Edited by Kenbar, 14 July 2014 - 09:37 PM.

[Skypp]

 

 

 

 

Younger...be nice, but no, personally I don`t think that will ever be possible. Dramatically slow down or better stop aging,...yes. Slow down is perhaps the best I/we can hope for the time being I believe. While it would be very interesting should C60 prove to be effective in the war against cancer of course, I am hoping for something more. Same as I believe everyone here is. And also the 3 mice experiment by our member here seemed to show that it did not prevent cancers in mice when started past mid life...such as with a big rat like myself...(57)
 
I want to be looking about the same, feeling about the same at 150... At the very least be chasing those fast wheelchair gals in the nursing homes...and having some luck.
 
I expect, that to stop aging,...the government/governments would have to mount a huge effort along the lines of that not seen since the development of the A bomb during WW2....if it is even possible (I want to think it can be done).
 
C60 offers a whole new hope...totally uncharted territory. I don`t believe natural "cures to aging" are the ticket as we don`t have anyone/groups living beyond the 100 mark in general. I think we would already have "discovered" eternal life if it was to be found certain foods/waters ect. But I also see C60oo as a long shot...based on one unrepeated study. But I`ll hold on to any hope...for the moment. Just want to stay/be realistic about the chances....

 
C60 is utilized by cell mitochondria. Much like a larger organism, a cell must process fuel and excrete waste accumulated within it. The mitochondria creates energy in the form of ATP, adenosine triphosphate. The mitochondria also play roles in such processes as cell-differentiation, and cell life cycle. As we get older, our cells perform these tasks less and less efficiently. Eventually, there is build-up of toxic materials within the cells, which are not being released properly. These are called free radicals, or, oxidized material. The C60 molecules are able to penetrate the mitochondria cell membrane, and once inside, can bond with and excrete the cell waste, which essentially makes the cell operate as if it were far more youthful. (***This is from an article I am writing on C60). Some scientific papers can be read here:
 
http://www.planettec...n-a-small-study
 
http://www.hindawi.c...ri/2013/821498/
 
So, yes, C60 is a powerful adaptogen/facilitator

 

I`ll throw out a little worry, built around this very good concept.

Let`s say the cell is like a yard. Clutter (paper, dead leaves, maybe a Mcdonalds coffee cup) ends up in the yard. All cells have clutter collectors...they run around the yard and pick up the trash and eject them from the cell. As we age, the new yards (new cells) start to have lazy clutter collectors. Every new generation of workers is lazier than the one before it...like humans. Eventually, they mostly just hang around dreaming of their retirement pensions...don`t want to work.

Now along comes something new...nice big garbage cans. Really nice ones that roll around the yard and grab up most the clutter. Happy days for both the yard and the lazy clutter collectors. Yard looks great, clean.

But there is a problem. As the years go by the garbage cans themselves, are filling up the yards. The lazy clutter collectors have a hard time getting them out of the cell, they are big and difficult to eject and tend to damage the fence/ gate forcing them out.

So what seemed like an awesome thing for years...ends up being a disaster down the road.

Could it be there is marked short term gain...but as it is repeated...the gain is steadily diminished...and down the road, a major problem as cells fill up with these large Bucky balls?

Could it be that if started on c60 at a younger age...the clutter collectors might adapt. Learn a new trade...become skilled garbage men. Forget clutter pick up...the high tech C60 garbage cans do that...all they have to do now is pick up the garbage cans when full and get them out of the yard (cell)? And perhaps ask for a raise? Better nutrition...

 

 
Liked the yard analogy... thought of stealing it for my article. Just kidding! Anyway, if I'm getting your point, you are assuming that the C60 molecules remain inside the cell. However, if they are "bonding" with the waste, then they are essentially pulling it out of the cell along with themselves. So, the new garbage cans do not just pile up in the yard, accumulating detritus, they become "one" with the waste, and exit the cell along with it. Pretty nifty if it truly works that way. One stark fact remains like a big fly stuck in the pudding. There are people with perfect habits who die youngish, and then there are people like Jean Clement who lived to be 123, only having given up cigarettes at 117! She also ate mounds of chocolate, drank, and was distainful of Vincent Van Gogh whom she met a few times. Wow. Where is the logic or sceince here? We have to look beyong mere cell biology to understand. I am getting more and more clear about C60 and I believe its worthwhile to consume it.

 

"Calment ascribed her longevity and relatively youthful appearance for her age to a diet rich in olive oil,[4] and rubbed onto her skin, as well as a diet of port wine, and ate nearly one kilogram (2.2 lb) of chocolate every week. Calment reportedly remained mentally intact until her very end.[4]

http://en.wikipedia..../Jeanne_Calment

Sorry it took so long to respond...busy dousing myself with olive oil and poping Resveratrol pills as I don`t have any Port wine handy. And it`s hard to eat chocolate ice cream with these oily hands...and type at the same time. But anyways, anyone have a cigarette I can have?

Ok, kidding aside, so...she was big on olive oil (both internally and rubbed on)...and the wine probably was giving her resveratrol...and dark chocolate is known to have some health benefits as well. Would be interesting if she liked her meats well done...think C60 can be found in burnt meats (chard over open flame). She was not big on exercise, but did some moderate exercises...stayed moderately active.

 

 

 

Younger...be nice, but no, personally I don`t think that will ever be possible. Dramatically slow down or better stop aging,...yes. Slow down is perhaps the best I/we can hope for the time being I believe. While it would be very interesting should C60 prove to be effective in the war against cancer of course, I am hoping for something more. Same as I believe everyone here is. And also the 3 mice experiment by our member here seemed to show that it did not prevent cancers in mice when started past mid life...such as with a big rat like myself...(57)
 
I want to be looking about the same, feeling about the same at 150... At the very least be chasing those fast wheelchair gals in the nursing homes...and having some luck.
 
I expect, that to stop aging,...the government/governments would have to mount a huge effort along the lines of that not seen since the development of the A bomb during WW2....if it is even possible (I want to think it can be done).
 
C60 offers a whole new hope...totally uncharted territory. I don`t believe natural "cures to aging" are the ticket as we don`t have anyone/groups living beyond the 100 mark in general. I think we would already have "discovered" eternal life if it was to be found certain foods/waters ect. But I also see C60oo as a long shot...based on one unrepeated study. But I`ll hold on to any hope...for the moment. Just want to stay/be realistic about the chances....

 
C60 is utilized by cell mitochondria. Much like a larger organism, a cell must process fuel and excrete waste accumulated within it. The mitochondria creates energy in the form of ATP, adenosine triphosphate. The mitochondria also play roles in such processes as cell-differentiation, and cell life cycle. As we get older, our cells perform these tasks less and less efficiently. Eventually, there is build-up of toxic materials within the cells, which are not being released properly. These are called free radicals, or, oxidized material. The C60 molecules are able to penetrate the mitochondria cell membrane, and once inside, can bond with and excrete the cell waste, which essentially makes the cell operate as if it were far more youthful. (***This is from an article I am writing on C60). Some scientific papers can be read here:
 
http://www.planettec...n-a-small-study
 
http://www.hindawi.c...ri/2013/821498/
 
So, yes, C60 is a powerful adaptogen/facilitator

 

I`ll throw out a little worry, built around this very good concept.

Let`s say the cell is like a yard. Clutter (paper, dead leaves, maybe a Mcdonalds coffee cup) ends up in the yard. All cells have clutter collectors...they run around the yard and pick up the trash and eject them from the cell. As we age, the new yards (new cells) start to have lazy clutter collectors. Every new generation of workers is lazier than the one before it...like humans. Eventually, they mostly just hang around dreaming of their retirement pensions...don`t want to work.

Now along comes something new...nice big garbage cans. Really nice ones that roll around the yard and grab up most the clutter. Happy days for both the yard and the lazy clutter collectors. Yard looks great, clean.

But there is a problem. As the years go by the garbage cans themselves, are filling up the yards. The lazy clutter collectors have a hard time getting them out of the cell, they are big and difficult to eject and tend to damage the fence/ gate forcing them out.

So what seemed like an awesome thing for years...ends up being a disaster down the road.

Could it be there is marked short term gain...but as it is repeated...the gain is steadily diminished...and down the road, a major problem as cells fill up with these large Bucky balls?

Could it be that if started on c60 at a younger age...the clutter collectors might adapt. Learn a new trade...become skilled garbage men. Forget clutter pick up...the high tech C60 garbage cans do that...all they have to do now is pick up the garbage cans when full and get them out of the yard (cell)? And perhaps ask for a raise? Better nutrition...

 

 
Liked the yard analogy... thought of stealing it for my article. Just kidding! Anyway, if I'm getting your point, you are assuming that the C60 molecules remain inside the cell. However, if they are "bonding" with the waste, then they are essentially pulling it out of the cell along with themselves. So, the new garbage cans do not just pile up in the yard, accumulating detritus, they become "one" with the waste, and exit the cell along with it. Pretty nifty if it truly works that way. One stark fact remains like a big fly stuck in the pudding. There are people with perfect habits who die youngish, and then there are people like Jean Clement who lived to be 123, only having given up cigarettes at 117! She also ate mounds of chocolate, drank, and was distainful of Vincent Van Gogh whom she met a few times. Wow. Where is the logic or sceince here? We have to look beyong mere cell biology to understand. I am getting more and more clear about C60 and I believe its worthwhile to consume it.

 

"Calment ascribed her longevity and relatively youthful appearance for her age to a diet rich in olive oil,[4] and rubbed onto her skin, as well as a diet of port wine, and ate nearly one kilogram (2.2 lb) of chocolate every week. Calment reportedly remained mentally intact until her very end.[4]

http://en.wikipedia..../Jeanne_Calment

Sorry it took so long to respond...busy dousing myself with olive oil and poping Resveratrol pills as I don`t have any Port wine handy. And it`s hard to eat chocolate ice cream with these oily hands...and type at the same time. But anyways, anyone have a cigarette I can have?

Ok, kidding aside, so...she was big on olive oil (both internally and rubbed on)...and the wine probably was giving her resveratrol...and dark chocolate is known to have some health benefits as well. Would be interesting if she liked her meats well done...think C60 can be found in burnt meats (chard over open flame). She was not big on exercise, but did some moderate exercises...stayed moderately active.

 

 

 

Younger...be nice, but no, personally I don`t think that will ever be possible. Dramatically slow down or better stop aging,...yes. Slow down is perhaps the best I/we can hope for the time being I believe. While it would be very interesting should C60 prove to be effective in the war against cancer of course, I am hoping for something more. Same as I believe everyone here is. And also the 3 mice experiment by our member here seemed to show that it did not prevent cancers in mice when started past mid life...such as with a big rat like myself...(57)
 
I want to be looking about the same, feeling about the same at 150... At the very least be chasing those fast wheelchair gals in the nursing homes...and having some luck.
 
I expect, that to stop aging,...the government/governments would have to mount a huge effort along the lines of that not seen since the development of the A bomb during WW2....if it is even possible (I want to think it can be done).
 
C60 offers a whole new hope...totally uncharted territory. I don`t believe natural "cures to aging" are the ticket as we don`t have anyone/groups living beyond the 100 mark in general. I think we would already have "discovered" eternal life if it was to be found certain foods/waters ect. But I also see C60oo as a long shot...based on one unrepeated study. But I`ll hold on to any hope...for the moment. Just want to stay/be realistic about the chances....

 
C60 is utilized by cell mitochondria. Much like a larger organism, a cell must process fuel and excrete waste accumulated within it. The mitochondria creates energy in the form of ATP, adenosine triphosphate. The mitochondria also play roles in such processes as cell-differentiation, and cell life cycle. As we get older, our cells perform these tasks less and less efficiently. Eventually, there is build-up of toxic materials within the cells, which are not being released properly. These are called free radicals, or, oxidized material. The C60 molecules are able to penetrate the mitochondria cell membrane, and once inside, can bond with and excrete the cell waste, which essentially makes the cell operate as if it were far more youthful. (***This is from an article I am writing on C60). Some scientific papers can be read here:
 
http://www.planettec...n-a-small-study
 
http://www.hindawi.c...ri/2013/821498/
 
So, yes, C60 is a powerful adaptogen/facilitator

 

I`ll throw out a little worry, built around this very good concept.

Let`s say the cell is like a yard. Clutter (paper, dead leaves, maybe a Mcdonalds coffee cup) ends up in the yard. All cells have clutter collectors...they run around the yard and pick up the trash and eject them from the cell. As we age, the new yards (new cells) start to have lazy clutter collectors. Every new generation of workers is lazier than the one before it...like humans. Eventually, they mostly just hang around dreaming of their retirement pensions...don`t want to work.

Now along comes something new...nice big garbage cans. Really nice ones that roll around the yard and grab up most the clutter. Happy days for both the yard and the lazy clutter collectors. Yard looks great, clean.

But there is a problem. As the years go by the garbage cans themselves, are filling up the yards. The lazy clutter collectors have a hard time getting them out of the cell, they are big and difficult to eject and tend to damage the fence/ gate forcing them out.

So what seemed like an awesome thing for years...ends up being a disaster down the road.

Could it be there is marked short term gain...but as it is repeated...the gain is steadily diminished...and down the road, a major problem as cells fill up with these large Bucky balls?

Could it be that if started on c60 at a younger age...the clutter collectors might adapt. Learn a new trade...become skilled garbage men. Forget clutter pick up...the high tech C60 garbage cans do that...all they have to do now is pick up the garbage cans when full and get them out of the yard (cell)? And perhaps ask for a raise? Better nutrition...

 

 
Liked the yard analogy... thought of stealing it for my article. Just kidding! Anyway, if I'm getting your point, you are assuming that the C60 molecules remain inside the cell. However, if they are "bonding" with the waste, then they are essentially pulling it out of the cell along with themselves. So, the new garbage cans do not just pile up in the yard, accumulating detritus, they become "one" with the waste, and exit the cell along with it. Pretty nifty if it truly works that way. One stark fact remains like a big fly stuck in the pudding. There are people with perfect habits who die youngish, and then there are people like Jean Clement who lived to be 123, only having given up cigarettes at 117! She also ate mounds of chocolate, drank, and was distainful of Vincent Van Gogh whom she met a few times. Wow. Where is the logic or sceince here? We have to look beyong mere cell biology to understand. I am getting more and more clear about C60 and I believe its worthwhile to consume it.

 

"Calment ascribed her longevity and relatively youthful appearance for her age to a diet rich in olive oil,[4] and rubbed onto her skin, as well as a diet of port wine, and ate nearly one kilogram (2.2 lb) of chocolate every week. Calment reportedly remained mentally intact until her very end.[4]

http://en.wikipedia..../Jeanne_Calment

Sorry it took so long to respond...busy dousing myself with olive oil and poping Resveratrol pills as I don`t have any Port wine handy. And it`s hard to eat chocolate ice cream with these oily hands...and type at the same time. But anyways, anyone have a cigarette I can have?

Ok, kidding aside, so...she was big on olive oil (both internally and rubbed on)...and the wine probably was giving her resveratrol...and dark chocolate is known to have some health benefits as well. Would be interesting if she liked her meats well done...think C60 can be found in burnt meats (chard over open flame). She was not big on exercise, but did some moderate exercises...stayed moderately active.

 

 

Yes, I could hear the thundering of feet to the cabinet with olive oil, as well as the chugging of port wine. But, really, all those lovely things cannot explain 123? That is the far end of the spectrum (right now). But I do beleive it will become more and more "normal" until 150 is the far end, and so on. There are other theories involving electromagnetism and the planet, but I'll save that as I do not know enough about it right now.

 

[Kenbar]

Wow...was that post I made messed up...don`t know why...but sorry none the less...

[niner]

C60 is utilized by cell mitochondria. Much like a larger organism, a cell must process fuel and excrete waste accumulated within it. The mitochondria creates energy in the form of ATP, adenosine triphosphate. The mitochondria also play roles in such processes as cell-differentiation, and cell life cycle. As we get older, our cells perform these tasks less and less efficiently. Eventually, there is build-up of toxic materials within the cells, which are not being released properly. These are called “free radicals”, or, oxidized material. The C60 molecules are able to penetrate the mitochondria cell membrane, and once inside, can bond with and excrete the cell waste, which essentially makes the cell operate as if it were far more youthful. (***This is from an article I am writing on C60). Some scientific papers can be read here:

 

http://www.planettec...n-a-small-study

 

http://www.hindawi.c...ri/2013/821498/

 

So, yes, C60 is a powerful adaptogen/facilitator

 

C60 doesn't work by removing waste.  It detoxifies the free radicals before they can create the "waste" (oxidized molecules, which are not themselves free radicals).  The first like is a report about the Baati et al. paper that described the results of the serendipitous discovery of c60-olive oil.  You can get a copy of the paper here. (at the end of the article)  The second link is to a paper (Chistyakov et al.) that proposes an uncoupling mechanism as the mechanism of action of c60-oo.  It is inconsistent with clinical evidence and is almost certainly wrong.  Their scheme is based on a computational method, but resulted in an essentially impossible structure.  This is the worst paper I've seen in a long time, so I hope you don't use it in your article.  The term "adaptogen" is a little hard to pin down, scientifically.  I wouldn't use it to describe c60-oo.

[Kenbar]

I don`t know. Olive oil alone has been shown to increase lifespans in mice...think around 15%. At least in the limited, un-repeated study done in France regarding the toxicity of C60oo. Perhaps it`s not really increasing lifespan...just helping avoid some of the things that normally do mice in at an earlier age. And perhaps the port wine (reversetrol) may have aided as well. Don`t think there is any secret here/there. Good genes, port wine, chocolate, and olive oil. Easy lifestyle too as she never had the stresses of holding a job...from what I read.

[Skypp]

 

C60 is utilized by cell mitochondria. Much like a larger organism, a cell must process fuel and excrete waste accumulated within it. The mitochondria creates energy in the form of ATP, adenosine triphosphate. The mitochondria also play roles in such processes as cell-differentiation, and cell life cycle. As we get older, our cells perform these tasks less and less efficiently. Eventually, there is build-up of toxic materials within the cells, which are not being released properly. These are called “free radicals”, or, oxidized material. The C60 molecules are able to penetrate the mitochondria cell membrane, and once inside, can bond with and excrete the cell waste, which essentially makes the cell operate as if it were far more youthful. (***This is from an article I am writing on C60). Some scientific papers can be read here:

 

http://www.planettec...n-a-small-study

 

http://www.hindawi.c...ri/2013/821498/

 

So, yes, C60 is a powerful adaptogen/facilitator

 

C60 doesn't work by removing waste.  It detoxifies the free radicals before they can create the "waste" (oxidized molecules, which are not themselves free radicals).  The first like is a report about the Baati et al. paper that described the results of the serendipitous discovery of c60-olive oil.  You can get a copy of the paper here. (at the end of the article)  The second link is to a paper (Chistyakov et al.) that proposes an uncoupling mechanism as the mechanism of action of c60-oo.  It is inconsistent with clinical evidence and is almost certainly wrong.  Their scheme is based on a computational method, but resulted in an essentially impossible structure.  This is the worst paper I've seen in a long time, so I hope you don't use it in your article.  The term "adaptogen" is a little hard to pin down, scientifically.  I wouldn't use it to describe c60-oo.

 

 

Many thanks... good clarification.
 

[niner]

 

 

 

C60 is utilized by cell mitochondria. Much like a larger organism, a cell must process fuel and excrete waste accumulated within it. The mitochondria creates energy in the form of ATP, adenosine triphosphate. The mitochondria also play roles in such processes as cell-differentiation, and cell life cycle. As we get older, our cells perform these tasks less and less efficiently. Eventually, there is build-up of toxic materials within the cells, which are not being released properly. These are called free radicals, or, oxidized material. The C60 molecules are able to penetrate the mitochondria cell membrane, and once inside, can bond with and excrete the cell waste, which essentially makes the cell operate as if it were far more youthful. (***This is from an article I am writing on C60). Some scientific papers can be read here:
 
http://www.planettec...n-a-small-study
 
http://www.hindawi.c...ri/2013/821498/
 
So, yes, C60 is a powerful adaptogen/facilitator

I`ll throw out a little worry, built around this very good concept.

Let`s say the cell is like a yard. Clutter (paper, dead leaves, maybe a Mcdonalds coffee cup) ends up in the yard. All cells have clutter collectors...they run around the yard and pick up the trash and eject them from the cell. As we age, the new yards (new cells) start to have lazy clutter collectors. Every new generation of workers is lazier than the one before it...like humans. Eventually, they mostly just hang around dreaming of their retirement pensions...don`t want to work.

Now along comes something new...nice big garbage cans. Really nice ones that roll around the yard and grab up most the clutter. Happy days for both the yard and the lazy clutter collectors. Yard looks great, clean.

But there is a problem. As the years go by the garbage cans themselves, are filling up the yards. The lazy clutter collectors have a hard time getting them out of the cell, they are big and difficult to eject and tend to damage the fence/ gate forcing them out.

So what seemed like an awesome thing for years...ends up being a disaster down the road.

Could it be there is marked short term gain...but as it is repeated...the gain is steadily diminished...and down the road, a major problem as cells fill up with these large Bucky balls?

Could it be that if started on c60 at a younger age...the clutter collectors might adapt. Learn a new trade...become skilled garbage men. Forget clutter pick up...the high tech C60 garbage cans do that...all they have to do now is pick up the garbage cans when full and get them out of the yard (cell)? And perhaps ask for a raise? Better nutrition...

 

 

Liked the yard analogy... thought of stealing it for my article. Just kidding! Anyway, if I'm getting your point, you are assuming that the C60 molecules remain inside the cell. However, if they are "bonding" with the waste, then they are essentially pulling it out of the cell along with themselves. So, the new garbage cans do not just pile up in the yard, accumulating detritus, they become "one" with the waste, and exit the cell along with it. Pretty nifty if it truly works that way. One stark fact remains like a big fly stuck in the pudding. There are people with perfect habits who die youngish, and then there are people like Jean Clement who lived to be 123, only having given up cigarettes at 117! She also ate mounds of chocolate, drank, and was distainful of Vincent Van Gogh whom she met a few times. Wow. Where is the logic or sceince here? We have to look beyong mere cell biology to understand. I am getting more and more clear about C60 and I believe its worthwhile to consume it.

 

Colorful analogy, but c60 doesn't work this way.  Jean Calment had some very good genes and was lucky enough not to die of any of the usual culprits.  I'm not sure that we need to look beyond biology to explain this, it's just that biology is extraordinarily complicated, and we don't understand it all that well yet.

[Turnbuckle]

 

Lipofuscin in particular is a problem. I've seen mention that centrophenoxine both decreases that pigment and extends the life of rats, so it might be interesting to try a combination.

The claim that centrophenoxine decreases lipofuscin is widespread, but apparently not true. If it were, Aubrey wouldn't need to mess around with difficult enzymatic therapies in LysoSENS. Michael addresses the whole sordid tale here and in a following post.

 

 

I think I'll give more credence to papers on pubmed than to a poster here who says "Centrophenoxine removes lipofuscin (false premise)" without any evidence.

[Skypp]

 

 

Lipofuscin in particular is a problem. I've seen mention that centrophenoxine both decreases that pigment and extends the life of rats, so it might be interesting to try a combination.

The claim that centrophenoxine decreases lipofuscin is widespread, but apparently not true. If it were, Aubrey wouldn't need to mess around with difficult enzymatic therapies in LysoSENS. Michael addresses the whole sordid tale here and in a following post.

 

 

I think I'll give more credence to papers on pubmed than to a poster here who says "Centrophenoxine removes lipofuscin (false premise)" without any evidence.

 

 

The recommended paper could not be opened anyway. Thanks for all your input, Turnbuckle.

 

[niner]

 

 

Lipofuscin in particular is a problem. I've seen mention that centrophenoxine both decreases that pigment and extends the life of rats, so it might be interesting to try a combination.

The claim that centrophenoxine decreases lipofuscin is widespread, but apparently not true. If it were, Aubrey wouldn't need to mess around with difficult enzymatic therapies in LysoSENS. Michael addresses the whole sordid tale here and in a following post.

 

 

I think I'll give more credence to papers on pubmed than to a poster here who says "Centrophenoxine removes lipofuscin (false premise)" without any evidence.

 

 

Sorry, he had a much better post about it, with references, earlier in the thread.

 

[Turnbuckle]

 

 

 

Lipofuscin in particular is a problem. I've seen mention that centrophenoxine both decreases that pigment and extends the life of rats, so it might be interesting to try a combination.

The claim that centrophenoxine decreases lipofuscin is widespread, but apparently not true. If it were, Aubrey wouldn't need to mess around with difficult enzymatic therapies in LysoSENS. Michael addresses the whole sordid tale here and in a following post.

 

 

I think I'll give more credence to papers on pubmed than to a poster here who says "Centrophenoxine removes lipofuscin (false premise)" without any evidence.

 

 

Sorry, he had a much better post about it, with references, earlier in the thread.

 

 

 

That's more like it. Without reading every paper, the impression I get is it doesn't work for neurons and retinal cells, but may work for other cells, such as muscle cells.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 14 July 2014 - 11:17 PM.

[SearchingForAnswers]

I believe I read something that made me think it was some type of potassium deposits that it removes... Can't recall exactly.

[Skypp]

I believe I read something that made me think it was some type of potassium deposits that it removes... Can't recall exactly.

Perhaps you saw something about fine-tuning C60 & C70 molecules for super-conductivity?

"By adding potassium atoms to familiar soccer-ball-shaped "buckyballs," Crommie and his coworkers can increase the electric charge on each C60 molecule; individual potassium atoms are either attached or removed from a C60 molecule using the tip of an STM. The method demonstrates that the electronic properties of an individual molecular structure can be reversibly tuned with atomic precision. The researchers report their work in the 12 March 2004 issue of the journal Science."

 

http://www2.lbl.gov/...buckyballs.html

[BioFreak]

"You can get a copy of the paper here. (at the end of the article)"

 

 

Niner, that version of the study is the non-corrected (oudated) version. See the corrigendum here: http://www.sciencedi...142961212005522

 

I could be able to get the corrected version, will post it if I do get it.

 

 

[niner]

Thanks BioFreak, I forgot to mention the corrigendum.  There was a really unfortunate (and dumb) error in the lifespan graph that made it look like the animals lived longer than they actually did.  The correct numbers were in the body of the text.  There was also a histology slide that was printed twice, as I recall.  This raised quite a ruckus shortly after the paper came out- when a paper has an eye-opening result like this, it really helps to have all the details in place.  The scientific community seems to have concluded that there was no intent to mislead, and that they were just careless errors.

[BioFreak]

I think so too. Hopefully I get the corrected version, then we can link to that one instead.

 

What do you think about the hayflick limit being the limiting part in that study? When looking at the chart it seems that the OO rats simply had better functioning cells then the water treated ones (i.e. the control group was having insufficient fatty acids), while the c60oo group showed much more survivability then the OO group, but not for a much longer time.

 

So in my eyes, the study showed that

a) the control group had a shorter lifespan due to nutritional deficiencies,

b) that the fatty acids in the OO group made up for this deficit

 

Therefore, only the comparison between OO and c60oo seems relevant.

 

And when comparing those two:

a) c60oo had a massive protective effect, because if I remember right all rats of the c60oo group died of wearing out, while most of the OO rats died because they lacked this protective effect. Thus dying of some illness before their biological programmed lifespan was up.

b) But of the OO group, 30% made it almost as far as the c60oo group. This could mean two things: 1) even the longest living OO rats eventually died of an illness before their maximum lifespan was up or 2) c60oo indeed had a life extending effect on their cells, that only makes a 8% difference in lifespan.

 

So I come to think of c60oo as a extremely protective substance, that has only a slight effect on maximum lifespan, as long as the hayflick limit basically determines our maximum lifespan. Basically take c60oo and life your programmed lifespan out without any disease that ends it prematurely.

 

Now if we could increase, or disable this limit, c60oo would be of massive value, because the risk for disease because of corrupted cells / dna / rna would be greatly diminished (a risk that increases with time, esp if we manage to get beyond the hayflick limit). Well, it's already of massive value due to it's protective effect within the defined lifespan, though.

 

The only substances I know of that could increase this limit would be substances from astralagus, so 20-30g astralagus / day could be a great combo with c60(preferably mixed with milk, since it contains a lectin that binds to lactose).

ta-65 seems to not have proven that it can extend lifespan, but I am hopeful that full spectrum astralagus supplementation would have a better impact. Although I admit I have not looked at why ta-65 did not extend lifespan, maybe they all still died of cancer like normal rats cause they lack the protection c60 provides.

 

What do you think?

Edited by BioFreak, 25 July 2014 - 01:30 PM.

[thedarkbobo]

Hmm my few cents.

 

// slight offtopic, not C60 related

I follow antiagingfirewalls blog and having read some of those lengthy posts I'm not so sure about telomerase activators as a best tool for longevity(at least not alone - check 11 point for example ). It might be more as a measure of your age than the cause of aging. Cause and effect problem - probably at some point when telomeres are too short it quickens cell/tissue/organ failure...but shortening is caused by something(errors) that we want to minimize.

 

One of recently mentioned substances for enhancing lifespan was d-glucosamine hcl and this is what I plan to add to my current regimen.

Author also mentions NMN/NR(I consider getting it or a substitute too; wanted to wait for the hype to pass a bit), melatonin (not sure, I probably won't need it for next 10-15 years) and maybe curcumin.

Seems like we would greatly benefit from some remove-trash-from-cells-and-tissues substances at this point. 

 

Enhance your body auto-repair abilities with substances and protect cells with C60   Healthy lifestyle, medium stress....hope for the best.

 

Also we have to remember that good body won't be of much use without damage-free brain 

 

Anyway, besides spinal pain I feel better than before experimenting with C60 and few other substances - including mental abilities and fatigue resistance. Will make homemade batch of 1,5L + ~1g in next few weeks. It was quiet an investment for few years(5g C60), but well, seems to be worth it. 

 

 

 

Edited by thedarkbobo, 25 July 2014 - 08:12 PM.

[Skypp]

Hmm my few cents.

 

I follow antiagingfirewalls blog and having read some of those lengthy posts I'm not so sure about telomerase activators as a best tool for longevity(at least not alone - check 11 point for example ). It might be more as a measure of your age than the cause of aging. Cause and effect problem - probably at some point when telomeres are too short it quickens cell/tissue/organ failure...but shortening is caused by something(errors) that we want to minimize.

 

One of recently mentioned substances for enhancing lifespan was d-glucosamine hcl and this is what I plan to add to my current regimen.

Author also mentions NMN/NR(I consider getting it or a substitute too; wanted to wait for the hype to pass a bit), melatonin (not sure, I probably won't need it for next 10-15 years) and maybe curcumin.

Seems like we would greatly benefit from some remove-trash-from-cells-and-tissues substances at this point. 

 

Enhance your body auto-repair abilities with substances and protect cells with C60   Healthy lifestyle, medium stress....hope for the best.

 

Also we have to remember that good body won't be of much use without damage-free brain 

 

Anyway, besides spinal pain I feel better than before experimenting with C60 and few other substances - including mental abilities and fatigue resistance. Will make homemade batch of 1,5L + ~1g in next few weeks. It was quiet an investment for few years(5g C60), but well, seems to be worth it. 

 

Why do you have "spinal pain"?  Just curious. I will read said blog. Just want to note that the so-called "Telomere" protection products ( I take the one that's slightly less pricey than the most expensive because its supposed to be better!?) and I will say that it makes me FEEL a lot healthier, hope my next batch arrives today. After doing enough do-diligent research, a person must ultimately rely on instinct and how they feel. "Science" has so often had one set of results only to reverse them completely many years later. It happens all the time. I also gave my Telomere product in small doses to my 13-year-old cat, and 14-year-old dog, both with amazing results. They are acting half their age. Can't argue with that. I am more productive and busy and work harder thatn I did ten years ago. I had a small amount of grey hair on my temple that I've had since I was 30, it went back to reddish brown in two weeks of taking Sermorelin (oral) and Product B. Probably not supposed to mention product names per say, but I'm not selling any of them.

 

[Skypp]

Hey, sorry for being so off topic above. Was replying to thedarkbobo, and forgot this was a C60 thread. Mea culpa.

Edited by Skypp, 25 July 2014 - 08:12 PM.

[thedarkbobo]

// slight offtopic

 

Yeah protection of telomeres might be much better idea than extending them as it is probably pro-cancer. Or maybe even that is bad idea. I think we need more info. For me risk/reward is not good enough so far. For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/25040628

 

It is becoming increasingly evident, however, that telomeres not only count cell divisions, but also function as sensors of genotoxic stresses to stop cell cycle progression prematurely and long before cells would have entered replicative senescence. This stable growth arrest, triggered by dysfunctional telomeres that are not necessarily critically short, likely evolved as a tumor-suppressing mechanism as it prevents proliferation of cells that are at risk for acquiring potentially hazardous and transforming mutations both in vitro and in vivo. Here, we review studies supporting the concept that telomeres are important cellular structures whose function not only is to count cell divisions, but also to act as molecular switches that can rapidly stop cell cycle progression permanently in response to a variety of stresses, including oncogenic signals.

 

 

//total offtopic

 

Well its lower back pain, I think due to lifting too heavy backpack once...and unfortunately it seemed to damage me somehow, so (not always, but quiet often) if I sit in bad position I have some pain for a day or few days. I will try to fix it with the use of under-back pillow on my chair in work. It's rather not substance-related and just one time damage that is hard to fix. I should probably visit a doctor..but its another topic.   Can't delete it too.

Edited by thedarkbobo, 25 July 2014 - 08:11 PM.

[Skypp]

// slight offtopic

 

Yeah protection of telomeres might be much better idea than extending them as it is probably pro-cancer. Or maybe even that is bad idea. I think we need more info. For me risk/reward is not good enough so far. For example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/25040628

 

It is becoming increasingly evident, however, that telomeres not only count cell divisions, but also function as sensors of genotoxic stresses to stop cell cycle progression prematurely and long before cells would have entered replicative senescence. This stable growth arrest, triggered by dysfunctional telomeres that are not necessarily critically short, likely evolved as a tumor-suppressing mechanism as it prevents proliferation of cells that are at risk for acquiring potentially hazardous and transforming mutations both in vitro and in vivo. Here, we review studies supporting the concept that telomeres are important cellular structures whose function not only is to count cell divisions, but also to act as molecular switches that can rapidly stop cell cycle progression permanently in response to a variety of stresses, including oncogenic signals.

 

 

//total offtopic

 

Well its lower back pain, I think due to lifting too heavy backpack once...and unfortunately it seemed to damage me somehow, so (not always, but quiet often) if I sit in bad position I have some pain for a day or few days. I will try to fix it with the use of under-back pillow on my chair in work. It's rather not substance-related and just one time damage that is hard to fix. I should probably visit a doctor..but its another topic.   Can't delete it too.

 

You need yoga. A simple level 1, long stretches, deep breathing. The kind of breathing done in yoga also cleanses the cells and detoxifies the body. The kind of pain you have is unreleased stress and tension. That alone will age anyone.

 

[Skypp]

I think so too. Hopefully I get the corrected version, then we can link to that one instead.

 

What do you think about the hayflick limit being the limiting part in that study? When looking at the chart it seems that the OO rats simply had better functioning cells then the water treated ones (i.e. the control group was having insufficient fatty acids), while the c60oo group showed much more survivability then the OO group, but not for a much longer time.

 

So in my eyes, the study showed that

a) the control group had a shorter lifespan due to nutritional deficiencies,

b) that the fatty acids in the OO group made up for this deficit

 

Therefore, only the comparison between OO and c60oo seems relevant.

 

And when comparing those two:

a) c60oo had a massive protective effect, because if I remember right all rats of the c60oo group died of wearing out, while most of the OO rats died because they lacked this protective effect. Thus dying of some illness before their biological programmed lifespan was up.

b) But of the OO group, 30% made it almost as far as the c60oo group. This could mean two things: 1) even the longest living OO rats eventually died of an illness before their maximum lifespan was up or 2) c60oo indeed had a life extending effect on their cells, that only makes a 8% difference in lifespan.

 

So I come to think of c60oo as a extremely protective substance, that has only a slight effect on maximum lifespan, as long as the hayflick limit basically determines our maximum lifespan. Basically take c60oo and life your programmed lifespan out without any disease that ends it prematurely.

 

Now if we could increase, or disable this limit, c60oo would be of massive value, because the risk for disease because of corrupted cells / dna / rna would be greatly diminished (a risk that increases with time, esp if we manage to get beyond the hayflick limit). Well, it's already of massive value due to it's protective effect within the defined lifespan, though.

 

The only substances I know of that could increase this limit would be substances from astralagus, so 20-30g astralagus / day could be a great combo with c60(preferably mixed with milk, since it contains a lectin that binds to lactose).

ta-65 seems to not have proven that it can extend lifespan, but I am hopeful that full spectrum astralagus supplementation would have a better impact. Although I admit I have not looked at why ta-65 did not extend lifespan, maybe they all still died of cancer like normal rats cause they lack the protection c60 provides.

 

What do you think?

 

I think it would be pertinent to know if the French scientists played classical music to the rats, or if they yelled at them, or if perhaps one of the French scientists was a particularly nice person and said things to make the rats feels valued? Okay, all kidding aside, we are ignoring the most fundamental things that in fact, probably increase lifespan more than any particular substance. Jean Clement, after all, lived longer than anyone we know of today. She stopped smoking at 117 and ate gobs of chocolate and drank port wine. But instead of saying, WOW, maybe its not all about the food, the so-called smart people rattle on about the Resveratrol in the wine! I really like this site and I actually appreciate the attention to science because its important. But our culture is so appallingly lacking in heart (hermetic traditions consider the heart the true seat of the mind) that we cannot even see the 400 lb Elephant in the room. No, we are letting the ELephant die from poaching while we dither on about whether or not we have exactly the right combo of supplements. That being said, C60 is powerful stuff and we have only just begun to find out what it can do. If you don't believe me, check back in five years. Save the Elephants, it'll make you live longer,

 

[niner]

What do you think about the hayflick limit being the limiting part in that study? When looking at the chart it seems that the OO rats simply had better functioning cells then the water treated ones (i.e. the control group was having insufficient fatty acids), while the c60oo group showed much more survivability then the OO group, but not for a much longer time.

 

So in my eyes, the study showed that

a) the control group had a shorter lifespan due to nutritional deficiencies,

b) that the fatty acids in the OO group made up for this deficit

 

Therefore, only the comparison between OO and c60oo seems relevant.

 

And when comparing those two:

a) c60oo had a massive protective effect, because if I remember right all rats of the c60oo group died of wearing out, while most of the OO rats died because they lacked this protective effect. Thus dying of some illness before their biological programmed lifespan was up.

b) But of the OO group, 30% made it almost as far as the c60oo group. This could mean two things: 1) even the longest living OO rats eventually died of an illness before their maximum lifespan was up or 2) c60oo indeed had a life extending effect on their cells, that only makes a 8% difference in lifespan.

 

So I come to think of c60oo as a extremely protective substance, that has only a slight effect on maximum lifespan, as long as the hayflick limit basically determines our maximum lifespan. Basically take c60oo and life your programmed lifespan out without any disease that ends it prematurely.

 

I don't think that we can blame the shorter lifespan of the controls on nutritional deficiencies because their lifespan was normal for this strain.  If that was due to nutritional deficiency, then it's happening with all Wistar rats, and the people who design lab rat diets are really missing the boat.  Also, the olive oil was only given to them a relatively small number of times, relative to their long lives.  They specifically wanted to avoid feeding the animals a high-fat diet, as this is known to shorten rat lifespan.  (The rats were dosed daily for a week, weekly for 7 weeks, and biweekly for 5 months, for a total of 28 doses.)   The fact remains that the olive oil group had a significantly (p<=0.01) longer median lifespan than the water group, an increase of 18%.  Moreover, as you mention, the maximum lifespan of the olive oil group is not wildly less than the c60oo group.  Something is going on with the olive oil group... And if it wasn't for the spectacular nature of the c60oo group, we would have probably paid a lot more attention to it.   We know that olive oil is good for humans, epidemiologically.  This is widely thought to be due to the polyphenols rather than the lipids.   I don't know if we know enough to do any more than speculate as to the cause of the olive oil effect in Baati's rats.

[mikey]

 

Hmm my few cents.

 

I follow antiagingfirewalls blog and having read some of those lengthy posts I'm not so sure about telomerase activators as a best tool for longevity(at least not alone - check 11 point for example ). It might be more as a measure of your age than the cause of aging. Cause and effect problem - probably at some point when telomeres are too short it quickens cell/tissue/organ failure...but shortening is caused by something(errors) that we want to minimize.

 

One of recently mentioned substances for enhancing lifespan was d-glucosamine hcl and this is what I plan to add to my current regimen.

Author also mentions NMN/NR(I consider getting it or a substitute too; wanted to wait for the hype to pass a bit), melatonin (not sure, I probably won't need it for next 10-15 years) and maybe curcumin.

Seems like we would greatly benefit from some remove-trash-from-cells-and-tissues substances at this point. 

 

Enhance your body auto-repair abilities with substances and protect cells with C60   Healthy lifestyle, medium stress....hope for the best.

 

Also we have to remember that good body won't be of much use without damage-free brain 

 

Anyway, besides spinal pain I feel better than before experimenting with C60 and few other substances - including mental abilities and fatigue resistance. Will make homemade batch of 1,5L + ~1g in next few weeks. It was quiet an investment for few years(5g C60), but well, seems to be worth it. 

 

Why do you have "spinal pain"?  Just curious. I will read said blog. Just want to note that the so-called "Telomere" protection products ( I take the one that's slightly less pricey than the most expensive because its supposed to be better!?) and I will say that it makes me FEEL a lot healthier, hope my next batch arrives today. After doing enough do-diligent research, a person must ultimately rely on instinct and how they feel. "Science" has so often had one set of results only to reverse them completely many years later. It happens all the time. I also gave my Telomere product in small doses to my 13-year-old cat, and 14-year-old dog, both with amazing results. They are acting half their age. Can't argue with that. I am more productive and busy and work harder thatn I did ten years ago. I had a small amount of grey hair on my temple that I've had since I was 30, it went back to reddish brown in two weeks of taking Sermorelin (oral) and Product B. Probably not supposed to mention product names per say, but I'm not selling any of them.

 

 

 

You can be assured that there is nothing wrong with mentioning product names if you aren't selling them. You are just stating facts and there is no question of a compromise in ethics with no profit motive.

 

Please tell us what Product B is?

And where did you get Semorelin?

 

Thank you!

[Skypp]

 

 

Hmm my few cents.

 

I follow antiagingfirewalls blog and having read some of those lengthy posts I'm not so sure about telomerase activators as a best tool for longevity(at least not alone - check 11 point for example ). It might be more as a measure of your age than the cause of aging. Cause and effect problem - probably at some point when telomeres are too short it quickens cell/tissue/organ failure...but shortening is caused by something(errors) that we want to minimize.

 

One of recently mentioned substances for enhancing lifespan was d-glucosamine hcl and this is what I plan to add to my current regimen.

Author also mentions NMN/NR(I consider getting it or a substitute too; wanted to wait for the hype to pass a bit), melatonin (not sure, I probably won't need it for next 10-15 years) and maybe curcumin.

Seems like we would greatly benefit from some remove-trash-from-cells-and-tissues substances at this point. 

 

Enhance your body auto-repair abilities with substances and protect cells with C60   Healthy lifestyle, medium stress....hope for the best.

 

Also we have to remember that good body won't be of much use without damage-free brain 

 

Anyway, besides spinal pain I feel better than before experimenting with C60 and few other substances - including mental abilities and fatigue resistance. Will make homemade batch of 1,5L + ~1g in next few weeks. It was quiet an investment for few years(5g C60), but well, seems to be worth it. 

 

Why do you have "spinal pain"?  Just curious. I will read said blog. Just want to note that the so-called "Telomere" protection products ( I take the one that's slightly less pricey than the most expensive because its supposed to be better!?) and I will say that it makes me FEEL a lot healthier, hope my next batch arrives today. After doing enough do-diligent research, a person must ultimately rely on instinct and how they feel. "Science" has so often had one set of results only to reverse them completely many years later. It happens all the time. I also gave my Telomere product in small doses to my 13-year-old cat, and 14-year-old dog, both with amazing results. They are acting half their age. Can't argue with that. I am more productive and busy and work harder thatn I did ten years ago. I had a small amount of grey hair on my temple that I've had since I was 30, it went back to reddish brown in two weeks of taking Sermorelin (oral) and Product B. Probably not supposed to mention product names per say, but I'm not selling any of them.

 

 

 

You can be assured that there is nothing wrong with mentioning product names if you aren't selling them. You are just stating facts and there is no question of a compromise in ethics with no profit motive.

 

Please tell us what Product B is?

And where did you get Semorelin?

 

Thank you!

 

 

Hi~ Product B is similar to, but many say way better than, Ta-65. It also happens to be a lot less expensive. The directions say to take two in the morning and two at night, but many people take three twice a day. I noticed a difference in about three days. There is a general, quiet feeling of well-being; way more energy; changes in hair and nails, vision getting better, memory better! I bought it on Amazon. However, I also started the Semorelin around the same time. It is a peptide HGH stimulater that many people are also injecting subcutaciously. The injectable is very expensive and I am not a fan of needles. It seems that a lot of weirdly youthful Hollywood actors are using it and I'm sure its great, but I haven't gone to that extreme yet. It is sold as an oral product too. I got it on International Anti -Aging Systems, which is one of the least scammy companies I've ordered from internationally. However I also found it here, for a better price:

 

http://thisisnatural...th-hormone.html

 

These two things together have been some of the most effective products I've come across. My two older pets (half a capsule in their food daily) have responded incredibly well to Product B. They are not known to be particularly prone to the placebo effect.

 

[niner]

Guys, if you want to talk about telomeres it would be better to create a thread for it here.  This thread is for c60.

[Skypp]

Apologies! I was answering a question, but yes, way off topic.

[BioFreak]

 

I don't think that we can blame the shorter lifespan of the controls on nutritional deficiencies because their lifespan was normal for this strain.  If that was due to nutritional deficiency, then it's happening with all Wistar rats, and the people who design lab rat diets are really missing the boat.  Also, the olive oil was only given to them a relatively small number of times, relative to their long lives.  They specifically wanted to avoid feeding the animals a high-fat diet, as this is known to shorten rat lifespan.  (The rats were dosed daily for a week, weekly for 7 weeks, and biweekly for 5 months, for a total of 28 doses.)   The fact remains that the olive oil group had a significantly (p<=0.01) longer median lifespan than the water group, an increase of 18%.  Moreover, as you mention, the maximum lifespan of the olive oil group is not wildly less than the c60oo group.  Something is going on with the olive oil group... And if it wasn't for the spectacular nature of the c60oo group, we would have probably paid a lot more attention to it.   We know that olive oil is good for humans, epidemiologically.  This is widely thought to be due to the polyphenols rather than the lipids.   I don't know if we know enough to do any more than speculate as to the cause of the olive oil effect in Baati's rats.

 

 

I think that the food is standardized. So other rat studies can more easily compare their results with this rat study. That does not mean that the diet is intended to provide the rats with the maximum possible lifespan, quite to the contrary. As long as a rat diet does not change the causes of death significantly, it would be beneficial if the rats would live less long - especially if the experiment is intended to see how long the rats live, for non longevity goals(i.e. toxicology). An approach like this would greatly reduce cost, without altering the significance of a study.

 

And if the food is standardized this way, then it would be just reasonable to assume that those rats had the same lifespan this strain should have. In fact, if their lifespan was significantly longer or shorter on the standardized diet, it would be an indication that the researchers did something wrong, and some unknown variable is influencing the whole experiment.

 

So if it was a nutritional deficiency, then any experiment using the same food, and adding OO similarly to how they did it in this study should have a similar change in lifespan.

 

Keep in mind, this was intended as a toxicology study as far as I can see. A study using c60oo for longevity should of course use a diet that attempts to give the rats their maximum lifespan, but I doubt this study even wanted to for budget reasons.

 

I bet there are even standardized diets for different types / goals of studies to make them comparable.

 

There are only four possible explanations:

a) Olive oil corrected a nutritional deficiency (pure speculation what substance, or combination of substances in OO had this effect though) or

b) The sample size was too small, and this is simply coincidence or

c) The autors made some sort of mistake while carrying out this study or

d) Olive oil has some life extending substances in it, that are not falling into the nutritional deficiency category.

 

Actually, that the OO dosage they received in total was not that big does not make me feel confident that the fatty acids are the "secret ingredient". The substance in OO must have been something that could have been recycled over and over over the lifespan of the rats, and could not be easily degraded, or be easily recycled. Maybe an element?

 

Also, I would suspect anything that does extend the lifespan but is not an element not to be stable enough to last for this long in a mouse.

 

Even if it is c, when comparing the normal lifespan of this strain with the c60oo group would make me think that the worst thing that could have wrong is that 30% of the OO group actually got c60oo. Increase in lifespan is a fact. And so is decrease of illness.

Man, that error would be great, cause this would mean that c60oo would increase lifespan a LOT.

 

What can I say. We need replication studies...

 

@Skypp
 

It's not about believing. When looking at the study you must compare the OO and c60OO group, because c60 is the only difference there.

 

If you interpret the study in a way that says that we should live almost twice as long, then you would also have to admit that 30% of people regularly eating olive oil would also live almost twice as long. And while olive oil has benefits, people in italy and greece(regular olive(oil) eaters) do not have a maximum lifespan that is much different from other parts in the western world, not to mention twice as long. Thats something that would have been known for sure.

 

Also, I am not trying to persuade you not to take c60, or try to contradict the studies results. All I am saying is that c60oo will probably extend most peoples lives, maybe even 8% longer then they should live, but surely longer then they would have lived within the maximum human lifespan, and that is reason enough to take it. Better die of wearing out then of a disease before that.

 

So at least in my head c60OO is now a massively protective substance that enhances my chances to die from old age instead of a disease drastically. Maybe even extend my life about 8%. But nothing more. (As if this was not reason enough to take it^^)

 

And, c60OO is an IRREPLACEABLE ingredient in any longevity stack. Just imagine, you manage it to increase your maximum lifespan, just to die of some illness because your body was not designed to protect itself for that long... yea, you could have lived for centuries, but woops, cancer... So c60oo is a must.

 

In the end, it does not matter what I believe. We all take it, and if I will get more benefits then I anticipated, then I'll be very happy to be wrong and enjoy it.

 

I will probably shift my research towards increasing the hayflick limit for now though, but keep taking it of course.

[sthira]

Is there any progress in the replication of that old study? I know some people here were working on citizen science rat projects -- which are great -- but all seems rather still & quiet on what seemed like a promising compound.

[pleb]

Whilst I'm conversant with the study. I'm unsure if the 18 % increase for the rats on OO include all the rats ? as one was noted through luck or something else living longer than all the others on OO. If that is the case the 18% is skewed and is an abnormality which for percentage purposes if done by a statistician would be ignored. this would bring the average down to a lower figure.