106 replies to this topic

[Turnbuckle]

The likely mechanisms of the two are different enough that the combination would probably be better than either alone.

Yeah I thought about the combination of the two.

While fullerenes can be used as a sorbent like activated carbon, it would be a mistake to take these two products at the same time, as activated carbon can absorb fullerenes.

Below is a chart showing how various sorbents will absorb C70. The best is an ordered mesoporous carbon (CMK-3), which was four times better than activated carbon (AC).

Attached Files

•  Sorbents for C60.png   30.76KB   18 downloads

Edited by Turnbuckle, 27 July 2012 - 06:03 PM.

[niner]

While fullerenes can be used as a sorbent like activated carbon, it would be a mistake to take these two products at the same time, as activated carbon can absorb fullerenes.

I wouldn't recommend a fullerene as a sorbent, as I suspect that activated charcoal is vastly better for vastly less money, but I agree that it shouldn't be taken with any other oral compounds. One should probably allow at least a few hours between other drugs/supplements and AC. That's just a guess, but it should be better than taking them at the same time.

[Logan]

The likely mechanisms of the two are different enough that the combination would probably be better than either alone.

Yeah I thought about the combination of the two.

While fullerenes can be used as a sorbent like activated carbon, it would be a mistake to take these two products at the same time, as activated carbon can absorb fullerenes.

Below is a chart showing how various sorbents will absorb C70. The best is an ordered mesoporous carbon (CMK-3), which was four times better than activated carbon (AC).

For this reason, I would not take the two at the same time.

[Logic]

Activated Charcoal and Kremezin are enterosorbents they work by absorbing AGE's and other toxins in the gut, before they get into one's system right?
So in effect they extend life by taking a load off the kidneys, (see link) and possibly liver etc.
This means they need to be eaten with food to be effective doesnt it?
If so; the question becomes: What else (nutrients etc) do they also absorb?
If they extend life so much it must mostly be bad stuff, but what about supplements??

http://morelife.org/...s/kremezin.html

[niner]

Activated Charcoal and Kremezin are enterosorbents they work by absorbing AGE's and other toxins in the gut, before they get into one's system right?
So in effect they extend life by taking a load off the kidneys, (see link) and possibly liver etc.
This means they need to be eaten with food to be effective doesnt it?
If so; the question becomes: What else (nutrients etc) do they also absorb?
If they extend life so much it must mostly be bad stuff, but what about supplements??

Kremezin is a particular brand of activated charcoal. They do absorb uremic toxins like indoxyl sulfate. (actually, I think they are absorbing free indole and/or 3-hydroxyl indole) They probably also absorb dietary AGEs, and undoubtedly other small to medium sized molecules, some of which are probably bad, but some of which might be desirable. Could they be absorbing nutrients? Maybe, although in several animal experiments, the animals seemed to do fine with charcoal, even in amounts a lot greater than might be reasonable for us. Charcoal doesn't need to be eaten with food. It would probably be better to eat it away from food, to reduce the likelihood of absorbing nutrients.

[mikey]

well, the first thing about this is that something called nitrogen-containing carbon makes rats live noticeably longer
also when I click on the researchers names (Frolkis, Muradian) at pubmed I found aging theories completely new to me.
The N on this study is not described, a similar study used 155 "vistar" rats.


Biomater Artif Cells Artif Organs. 1989;17(3):341-51.
Effect of enterosorption on animal lifespan.

Frolkis VV, Nikolaev VG, Paramonova GI, Shchorbitskaya EV, Bogatskaya LN, Stupina AS, Kovtun AI, Sabko VE, Shaposhnikov VM, Muradian KK, et al.

Source

Institute of Gerontology AMS USSR.

Abstract

Experiments were performed on Wistar male rats, starting from the 28th month of age. The effect of dietary sorbent (non coated nitrogen-containing carbon administered as 10 day courses at 1 month intervals in dosage of 10 ml/kg) on lifespan and a number of biological indices were studied. Enterosorption resulted in the increase of mean and maximal lifespan by 43 and 34% respectively. Analysis of the effect of enterosorption on activity of microsomal enzymes, intensity of total RNA and protein biosynthesis, lipid metabolism, formation of free radicals etc. showed that it produced a positive influence on the functional state of the studied systems and increased the organism's adaptive capacities. Enterosorption was found to delay the rate of onset of age-related structural changes in the organs and tissues.

PMID: 2479433


another journal article, a russian review of enteroabsorbents www.ngcrussia.org/Articles/Enterosorption.doc says
There is direct evidence that shows the effects of enterosorption on the prolonging of life. When carbon sorbent SKN was added to the ration of 20-month-old

rats, it resulted in an increase in average life (AL) and maximum life (ML) expectancy of 43.4 and 34.4%, respectively [1]. The 16-month treatment of enterosorption with an active nitrogen-containing carbon employed on 155 Vistar rats led to an AL and ML increase of 35.7 and 36.8%, respectively, and, further, to an increase in spontaneous motor activity and muscle working capacity

the highest longevity number described at the ngcrussia.org enetersorption article is

The prolonging influence of enterosorption on lifespan is similar to that of a low-calorie diet (LCD). While using enterosorption simultaneously (but not separately) with carbon enterosorbent aerosil and LCD (50% of norm) on male Vistar rats (22 months old), an increase of 56-60% in average life duration was shown [30].

so apparently eating activated carbon sorbent makes rats live a lot longer. also, although n=6 at the c60 study, n= 155 at a study increasing lifespan 43 pct.

So if cheap activated charcoal extends old rats lifespans 34 - 60%, while expensive 99.98% fullerene C(60) extends young rats lifespan 90%, is it possible that it's just the carbon that's doing all the magic?

[Turnbuckle]

The prolonging influence of enterosorption on lifespan is similar to that of a low-calorie diet (LCD). While using enterosorption simultaneously (but not separately) with carbon enterosorbent aerosil and LCD (50% of norm) on male Vistar rats (22 months old), an increase of 56-60% in average life duration was shown [30].

There is apparently a comma missing before aerosil in "carbon enterosorbent aerosil," because aerosil is fumed silica. Thus it's not just pure carbon.


I believe that fumed silica is the basis of a product marketed as Microhydrin. The wife of the inventor died of a stroke after taking quite a bit of it, and here is an interesting quote from an article (or a reply to an article) in Neuromolecular Med.--

I have seen a single injection of
fumed silica reverse asthma for a year. This might be justified to
save a life, but it is not for routine administration. I am
currently working with a middle-aged man with an atypical carcinoid
in his lungs, liver, bones, and in three chambers of his heart. The
only unusual aspect of his medical history is that he had faithfully
taken Microhydrin silica for 12 years. He does have radiographically
strange-looking deposits in his mediastinum. His disease might be
akin to asbestosis. I am working up a program to flush this out of
him, but it is difficult and perhaps fruitless. Currently he is stable.

http://health.dir.gr...e/message/34279

Edited by Turnbuckle, 04 August 2012 - 10:14 PM.

[niner]

So if cheap activated charcoal extends old rats lifespans 34 - 60%, while expensive 99.98% fullerene C(60) extends young rats lifespan 90%, is it possible that it's just the carbon that's doing all the magic?

You can't really look at it that way. It's sort of like saying that charcoal briquettes and diamonds are the same because they're both just carbon. Carbon has radically different properties depending on the way that the atoms are bonded to each other. I think this is very exciting because C60 and activated carbon are almost certain to have very different mechanisms. I think there is a good chance that the effects of each will be at least partially additive.

[mikey]

The prolonging influence of enterosorption on lifespan is similar to that of a low-calorie diet (LCD). While using enterosorption simultaneously (but not separately) with carbon enterosorbent aerosil and LCD (50% of norm) on male Vistar rats (22 months old), an increase of 56-60% in average life duration was shown [30].

There is apparently a comma missing before aerosil in "carbon enterosorbent aerosil," because aerosil is fumed silica. Thus it's not just pure carbon.

Well, if we leave out the fumed silica and just look at the increase in lifespans from activated charcoal and fullerene C(60) one can wonder is it just carbon itself that extends lifespan?

However, a friend told me that he had seen data showing that some activated charcoals contain fullerenes, so is it also possible that the life extension attributed to activated charcoal is caused by fullerene content?

[Turnbuckle]

The prolonging influence of enterosorption on lifespan is similar to that of a low-calorie diet (LCD). While using enterosorption simultaneously (but not separately) with carbon enterosorbent aerosil and LCD (50% of norm) on male Vistar rats (22 months old), an increase of 56-60% in average life duration was shown [30].

There is apparently a comma missing before aerosil in "carbon enterosorbent aerosil," because aerosil is fumed silica. Thus it's not just pure carbon.

Well, if we leave out the fumed silica and just look at the increase in lifespans from activated charcoal and fullerene C(60) one can wonder is it just carbon itself that extends lifespan?

However, a friend told me that he had seen data showing that some activated charcoals contain fullerenes, so is it also possible that the life extension attributed to activated charcoal is caused by fullerene content?

This is something I'd speculated on before. Since we don't know how this nitrogen containing activated carbon was made, it might have fulerenes in it, and another carbon has been associated with improved health, shungite, which is the only natural source of fullerenes on the planet. Water flowing through shungite deposits--Marsial water--has been thought for centuries to have healing properties. Here's a link to a site advertising it.
http://petrovan-tour...fault&city=sans

It would be amazing if two very different carbons had such effects on longevity by different mechanisms. Occam's razor would say there's probably only one--that both contain fullerenes.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 06 August 2012 - 10:15 PM.

[niner]

It would be amazing if two very different carbons had such effects on longevity by different mechanisms. Occam's razor would say there's probably only one--that both contain fullerenes.

That's only amazing if you find the wildly different physical properties of diamond, charcoal, and graphene to be amazing. Why aren't they identical? They're all carbon, right? I just don't see any need for Occam here. Activated carbon is an enterosorbent that reduces the concentration of known toxic species. We know that happens, and we know it's a good thing. Fullerenes have a well known affinity for free radicals, and we know they localize to membranes, particularly mitochondrial membrane, exactly where they are most needed. These represent two very plausible, and very different mechanisms for life extension.

Even if there were fullerenes in activated charcoal, I seriously doubt there would be enough to see an effect. The pyrolytic conditions in which charcoal is formed are wildly different than the low pressure inert gas electric arcs where fullerenes are formed in large quantities. I just don't think there would be enough formed in charcoal to do much.

Edit: Shibuya et al. speak of finding C60 at 0.1 ppm in soot from burning hydrocarbons, and "small, but measurable" quantities of C60 in two samples of commercial charcoal. I don't have access to the full text, but this suggests that any C60 in charcoal would be near the limits of detection. That wouldn't be enough to be responsible for the observed lifespan increase.

Edited by niner, 07 August 2012 - 01:01 AM.

[treonsverdery]

I would like petfood companies to start making an activated carbon dry food. At the paper it says the long lived rats had half their food as activated carbon.

This is a huge benefit to the petfood companies as activated carbon is cheaper than actual protein or carbohydrates, so they can create a premium product with less costly ingredients that produces large proof of efficacy at a variety of mammal species

Edited by treonsverdery, 09 August 2012 - 07:38 PM.

[treonsverdery]

If they like the petfood companies could also make a nonpremium (cheap) activated carbon petfood as well

[niner]

activated carbon is cheaper than actual protein or carbohydrates, so they can create a premium product with less costly ingredients that produces large proof of efficacy at a variety of mammal species

Activated carbon is a pretty sophisticated substance. It's not just charcoal. I really doubt that it's cheaper than the low grade foods that pet food makers use.

How many different mammals do we have evidence of efficacy in?

[Logan]

Hey niner, are you taking activated charcoal yet? I am. I don't feel anything really, other than maybe feeling a little more mellowed than I would like to be at times. The more I take, the more my shit is black. I think I might be more regular taking AC, can't be sure though. I don't really have any negative side effects to report.

I think taking AC is a no brainer. Not sure why anyone insterested in life extension wouldn't start taking it. Seems like the risk would be pretty low.

[Hebbeh]

Hey niner, are you taking activated charcoal yet? I am. I don't feel anything really, other than maybe feeling a little more mellowed than I would like to be at times. The more I take, the more my shit is black. I think I might be more regular taking AC, can't be sure though. I don't really have any negative side effects to report.

I think taking AC is a no brainer. Not sure why anyone insterested in life extension wouldn't start taking it. Seems like the risk would be pretty low.

I'm not yet convinced the AC would eliminate more essential nutrients than any supposed toxins.

[niner]

Hey niner, are you taking activated charcoal yet? I am. I don't feel anything really, other than maybe feeling a little more mellowed than I would like to be at times. The more I take, the more my shit is black. I think I might be more regular taking AC, can't be sure though. I don't really have any negative side effects to report.

I think taking AC is a no brainer. Not sure why anyone insterested in life extension wouldn't start taking it. Seems like the risk would be pretty low.

Not yet. A lot of people claim it causes constipation, FWIW. If a ten gram/day dose is really the way to go, then that's an awful lot of 250 mg caps. There are also 500 mg caps, but they are harder to find. I've seen advice that they be taken five hours away from pharmaceuticals. That's a bit of a PITA. The general concern is that they might absorb drugs, supplements, or nutrients of various kinds. I don't know how valid all of that is, but those are the issues that I've run across. In the mouse experiments, it was given in late life. That would make sense if the mechanism is absorption of toxic compounds that senescent cells are emitting. Anyway, if that's the case, I can wait on it for a little while while I get my C60-oo brewed up. Ultimately, I'd like to try it, but I might want to learn more about it first. How much are you taking?

[Logan]

I'm taking anywhere from 5 to 10 grams a day 4 days a week.

[Turnbuckle]

Why take it in capsules? Here's a source of USP food grade powder.

53 oz 1 gal plastic jar - each ($46.19)
53 oz 1 gal GLASS jar - each ($49.21)
8 lb 2 gal pail - each ($102.38)
20 lb 5 gal pail - each ($191.37)
44 lb poly sack (Call for correct shipping, if ordering more than 1 sack) ($333.96)

[Logan]

Yes, that is the way to go. I will be ordering some bulk powder soon.

[niner]

The price is right, but it seems like it would be awfully messy. It's a super fine powder, according to the specs. It would probably have a tendency to get all over the place. I'm kinda whining here, but it does look like a good deal. I came close to buying some...

[Turnbuckle]

The price is right, but it seems like it would be awfully messy. It's a super fine powder, according to the specs. It would probably have a tendency to get all over the place. I'm kinda whining here, but it does look like a good deal. I came close to buying some...

I have some on order. I'll let you know.

Presently I take a number of powders doctored up with a powdered margarita flavoring. I added fine zeolite and bentonite powders to them recently and it turned it an unattractive gray but otherwise didn't affect the taste and only slightly affected the dispersibility. I expect the carbon will be similar, and once mixed in shouldn't present a dust problem. Hopefully.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 10 August 2012 - 07:59 PM.

[hav]

If its a superfine powder, you might try substituting it for c60 in a test evoo batch. I think Anthony tried something like that with some charcoal he crushed up. Might make an interesting control in rat study.

Howard

[Turnbuckle]

I received the "Charcoal House" powder I linked to in post #49 above, and it is very similar to bentonite and zeolite powers in that you want to let it settle before you (carefully) spoon it out. I mixed it up with all the other powders I take and it turned the water an unattractive black, but didn't do anything to the taste.

[niner]

Thanks, Turnbuckle. Let us know how it works out for you. How much are you taking?

I edited the title of this thread to put more emphasis on activated charcoal, since that wasn't really clear from the title; hope that's ok with everyone.

[Logic]

Im just glad Activated Charcoal is getting the attention it deserves here at last.
I have activated charcoal but am unsure when to take is as it absorbs AGE"s and toxins etc it makes sense to take it just before eating, but one does not want it to absorb the good stuff.
I did get what Niner said, but is that really the case?


I suppose that leaves some research to be done and perhaps checking to see what effect it has on every supplement I/we take but foods is almost impossible.

[Logan]

Im just glad Activated Charcoal is getting the attention it deserves here at last.
I have activated charcoal but am unsure when to take is as it absorbs AGE"s and toxins etc it makes sense to take it just before eating, but one does not want it to absorb the good stuff.
I did get what Niner said, but is that really the case?


I suppose that leaves some research to be done and perhaps checking to see what effect it has on every supplement I/we take but foods is almost impossible.

I'm surprised that activated charcoal went this long without serious consideration here. There were a few studies out there, and one of them was from a loooong time ago. I've seen that it got attention quite a while back on other life extension websites, but I don't think it ever did here.

I wonder how long activated charcoal sticks around to have a toxin absorbing effect. Is the fact that it's still in my poop a good 15 hours after the last time I took it any indication of it having had an impact for a fairly long time?

[Logic]

I'm surprised that activated charcoal went this long without serious consideration here. There were a few studies out there, and one of them was from a loooong time ago. I've seen that it got attention quite a while back on other life extension websites, but I don't think it ever did here.

I wonder how long activated charcoal sticks around to have a toxin absorbing effect. Is the fact that it's still in my poop a good 15 hours after the last time I took it any indication of it having had an impact for a fairly long time?

Yep I plan to look into it a lot, but theres so much I want to research.

Depends on how much you poop I suppose.

So many variables and questions.

[niner]

Im just glad Activated Charcoal is getting the attention it deserves here at last.
I have activated charcoal but am unsure when to take is as it absorbs AGE"s and toxins etc it makes sense to take it just before eating, but one does not want it to absorb the good stuff.
I did get what Niner said, but is that really the case?

Well, I wish I knew. It's a tough call, because foods have exogenous AGEs, at least if it's cooked food, and those are proven bad actors. Food also has bacterial endotoxins that survive cooking- lipopolysaccharides, that are highly inflammatory. These are found in both plant and animal foods, though they are higher in animal products. So there's reasons to want to absorb toxins from food, but food also has vital nutrients. Some of those nutrients aren't released until hours later, when gut bacteria have done their thing. I don't know what the best approach would be; we could try to keep the dose on the low side, or cycle it, or take it with food one day, away from food the next. In the animal experiments that I'm aware of, the charcoal was in the feed, 100% of the time, and the animals didn't seem to have any obvious problems. Not only that, but the rats live a hell of a long time, which is kind of the proof in the pudding that taking it with food isn't that bad.

I'm surprised that activated charcoal went this long without serious consideration here. There were a few studies out there, and one of them was from a loooong time ago. I've seen that it got attention quite a while back on other life extension websites, but I don't think it ever did here.

I wonder how long activated charcoal sticks around to have a toxin absorbing effect. Is the fact that it's still in my poop a good 15 hours after the last time I took it any indication of it having had an impact for a fairly long time?

Yeah, it's really weird, considering all the bullshit potions people have tried. I'm not sure how this stayed so far under the radar. Right now, I think it's being eclipsed in our brainspace by C60.

You can pretty much see what the transit time of charcoal is. One thing I don't know is, depending on where it is in the gut, is it more or less effective? There's probably very different substances in the small intestine, compared to the large intestine, for example. For the animals that were taking it as a mixture in their feed, the charcoal would have been somewhere in the gut 100% of the time.

[stephen_b]

What about single amino acids? If I want to take some taurine or glycine before bed with activated charcoal, does that get absorbed?