Most bang for buck for achieving immortality

This one is a given to me, it's MPrize all the way. I'll keep the basic multi (holding on to Orthocore, half dosage, and considering Network synergy) and MAYBE few noops (haven't decided upon this one yet, trying to find out which, if any, actually work). Ditching the rest, they most likely will not do anything, at least for longevity purposes. They certainly have no science backing yet, and some might be counteractive. Even the best regime would maybe give few years of extra on average (by avoiding premature death). Saved money goes to MPrize (ok, maybe not all of it, I'm human you know [sfty] ).

To put money where my mouth is, I made my first donation today. It was not very much, but it's a start. Giving the 300 membership a serious thought..

I believe this is a superior strategy and recommend it to everyone else too.

I dont know about the no evidence part
Im going with the supps

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

I definitely go for the Mprize, but taking care of my personal health is just as important to me as my commitment to the 300. In any case, if you cant afford a continuous economical support to the Mprize, a single donation of any size is enough to add an extra voice to the list of voices against the horrors of aging.

Put your face and/or your thoughts on the wall so people can see there are real ordinary people out there caring about making growing older a success in life rather than a certain road to pain and suffering.

I dont know about the no evidence part

I'm going to focus here on longevity only..

Virtually no supplement has been able to increase average life-span (at least consistently), let alone maximum lifespan, of genetically normal rodents, so its a bit stretch to assume they would do so in humans (from whom such studies cannot be conducted). studies stating positive effects have been for most part done on genetically modified rodents, whose lifespan is severely reduced compared to wild types. there has been discussion here at ImmInst why these kinds of results do not really prove anything, i.e. its easier to fix something broken, for example here. also, improving average lifespan of rodents does not probably help humans because in industrialized societies only improvement of maximum lifespan will improve average lifespan. that is, while an intervention might reduce ageing related diseases etc., it still would not have an effect even on average lifespan of humans because those diseases can be treated so they are not deadly (but they still can reduce quality of life of course).

now with rodents the problem might be that because they virtually always die on cancer, supplements counteracting other aging processes will probably have not much effect (thus explaining the failure of supplement trials). but then again, with humans we know there are multiple aging related processess so counteracting only few will minimal effect. besides, based on current data we really don't know what kind of results we would get even if rodents were less cancer prone.

so yes, I don't think there is much evidence for any supplement on increasing even average lifespan. the one thing that gets ignored often is that some of them might have life shortening effects, because to increase life span you have reduce most or ALL aging processess but to decrease life span you only have to accelerate one. calorie restriction is the only method actually proven to work, and thus probably CR mimimetics will also work when they arrive, but their effect on humans might be much less than anticipated initially, maybe only few years [1,2], even if started at an early age. also, CR mimimetic drugs might share some of the less welcomed side effects of actual CR, for example drastically reduced libido.

anyhow, the main point in my view really is not even that do supplements work or not. the point is that even supplements did work, they would still get you only few years. but if the Mouse Prize works, it might get you 5000 years. start calculating expected values..

[1]de Grey ADNJ. The unfortunate influence of the weather on the rate of aging: why human caloric restriction or its emulation may only extend life expectancy by 2-3 years. Gerontology 2005; 51(2):73-82.
http://www.gen.cam.a...s/weatherPP.pdf

[2]Phelan JP, Rose MR. Why dietary restriction substantially increases longevity in animal models but won't in humans. Ageing Res Rev. 2005 Aug;4(3):339-50.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....2&dopt=Citation

Virtually no supplement has been able to increase average life-span (at least consistently), let alone maximum lifespan, of genetically normal rodents

You may like to read my post in the LEF forum
some years ago :

http://forum.lef.org...&g=18991#m18991


I believe the study by Henry Schroeder was one of this :

http://www.ncbi.nlm....st_uids=6053743

http://www.ncbi.nlm....st_uids=5124041

It's the Free Rider problem.

I'll personally see more benefit if I spend my own money on my own health, however, I benefit from people putting money into the MPrize.

For example, suppose upgrading my diet to 'good' levels costs $2,000 extra a year to buy a few more years of health. However, if the MPrize is critical to cracking aging, then (as long as I'm not dead), the $2,000 / year is well invested there.

To be quite honest...

Most bang for buck:

Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
www.singinst.org

sorry to spoil all the fun...but...
Holiday in Bali. I might not live longer, but i'll live happier

All:

Virtually no supplement has been able to increase average life-span (at least consistently), let alone maximum lifespan, of genetically normal rodents

You may like to read my post in the LEF forum
some years ago :
http://forum.lef.org...&g=18991#m18991

In his toxicity studies of selenium on rats during the 1960's as described in Saul Kent's book 'Life Extension', Henry Shroeder inadvertently doubled the lifespan of one of the surviving rats to the human equivalent of 160 years and another to about 130, virtually unheard of in any animal model.

This study didn't actually show a maximum LS extension. The supplemented animals as a cohort lived no longer than the controls; there was one outlier female who lived quite exceptionally long. Because the standard at the time was for animals were housed in group cages, it is impossible to be absolutely sure of the age of any particular organism, and actually possible that it was weeks or even months younger than its putative cohorts; and, IAC, it may have had exceptional genetics because of mutation or what have you.

The point is that one animal does not a meaningful result make. For exactly this reason, "maximum lifespan" is not operationally defined by serious biogerontologists today as "the longest-lived single animal in the cohort," but as "the average LS of the longest-lived decile of the cohort. By this measure, as by av'g LS or a visual inspection of the survival curves, selenium did nothing for the animals once you remove the outlier -- and in fact increased carcinogenesis.

This is parallel to observations in other studies, tho' I have no references at my fingertips.

No supplement has ever shown a demonstrable increase in maximum LS in normal, healthy, well-cared-for organisms -- ie, relative to a control group with mean & max LS of >900 & 1200 days, respectively, in mice. By contrast, this is routinely achieved in modern CR studies.

For the moment, supplements can be a minor insurance policy, and there are a couple of exotics that might be worth the experiment (R(+)-LA, benfotiamine, pyridoxamine (if you can get it clean -- and I'm not aware of any such source at the moment), but they simply cannot be justified on an evidence-based, risk: benefit analysis. CR and the MPrize are the only reasonable investments for radical life extension.

-Michael

1: Schroeder HA, Mitchener M.
Selenium and tellurium in rats: effect on growth, survival and tumors.
J Nutr. 1971 Nov;101(11):1531-40. No abstract available.
PMID: 5124041 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm....st_uids=5124041

Mprize. Hands down.

y'all are gonna be very happy :-)

an anonymous donor has given One Million dollars to the Mprize for Rejuvenation. See www.fightaging.org and www.mprize.org for details.

Dave

WHOA!!!!!!

That is FANTASTIC

now that champagne popping has stopped.. must not forget there is still a long way to go.

I think EVERY SINGLE supplement taking ImmInst member should be aware of this statement:

No supplement has EVER shown a demonstrable increase in maximum LS in normal, healthy, well-cared-for organisms -- ie, relative to a control group with mean & max LS of >900 & 1200 days, respectively, in mice. By contrast, this is routinely achieved in modern CR studies.

For the moment, supplements can be a minor insurance policy, and there are a couple of exotics that might be worth the experiment (R(+)-LA, benfotiamine, pyridoxamine (if you can get it clean -- and I'm not aware of any such source at the moment), but they simply cannot be justified on an evidence-based, risk: benefit analysis. CR and the MPrize are the only reasonable investments for radical life extension.

That is the reality at moment, like it or not. I think there is a HUGE gap between what people think science says about all these supplements and what science actually says. I know its depressing there is not much we can do at the moment (other than donating to MPrize, CR and practising life extension activism), but that does not justify clinging into wishful thinking. Wishful thinking does not deliver radical life extension; deliberate rational actions eventually do. MPrize beats supplements in this sense 10000 - 0.

There is actually one more rational (monetary) investment one could do to improve his chances on immortality that I don't think has been properly explored here; that is to invest in companies that investigate/develop technologies relevant to radical life extension. I started a thread in this here, go check it out and contribute if you can. The beauty of this strategy is that you would not just have to spend money, you could actually earn money, quite possibly even MAJOR cash (check the referenced thread why I think so). I know that at least Osiris is following this kind of strategy.

But for now, I would advice stop spending money (and energy) on non-proven supplements (other than perhaps the few basics mentioned here), at least until they have some real scientific evidence on them.

No supplement has EVER shown a demonstrable increase in maximum LS in normal, healthy, well-cared-for organisms -- ie, relative to a control group with mean & max LS of >900 & 1200 days, respectively, in mice. By contrast, this is routinely achieved in modern CR studies.

For the moment, supplements can be a minor insurance policy, and there are a couple of exotics that might be worth the experiment (R(+)-LA, benfotiamine, pyridoxamine (if you can get it clean -- and I'm not aware of any such source at the moment), but they simply cannot be justified on an evidence-based, risk: benefit analysis. CR and the MPrize are the only reasonable investments for radical life extension.

For those capable of understanding, who do the research on deprenyl, and have an intricate insights into the aging process know deprenyl and CR diet are the most proven means of increasing lifespan in animals and hold the best promise of compounds currently available for helping to increase lifespan in humans. No single compound will ever stop aging, rather a multifaceted approach utilizing diet, drugs, supplements, stem cell, gene therapy, and nanotech will prove successive in my opinion.

R-ALA, Benfotiamine, and Pyridoxamine are compounds proven to intervene in known causes/factors of aging (quality is not an issue unless you buy them from a respectable source) I see no reason not to take them unless you simply want to help reduce the risk of age related diseases.

While few studies on supplements have shown a maximum lifespan effect (partly because very few people fund the research) the drug deprenyl has been studied with healthy mice showing an effect of increasing maximum lifespan.(1,2, see http://www.imminst.o...&f=199&t=384&s= for more research)

CR and the MPrize are the only reasonable investments for radical life extension.

The Mprize sounds like a good idea but the results will take a very long time to benefit anyone in the next 50 years in my opinion….I’d rather invest in what I know can benefit me now rather than ensure some mouse lives longer than I do.

CR is not a very reasonable approach in my opinion…considering most people will not do it at its full extent. I follow a modified CR diet combined with several compounds I take on a daily basis that I know will improve my mental/physical health and greatly reduce many of the known causes and factors of aging.


(1)
Acta Neurol Scand Suppl 1989;126:83-91
The pharmacology of selegiline ((-)deprenyl). New aspects.
Knoll J. Department of Pharmacology, Semmelweis University of Medicine, Budapest, Hungary.

Male rats were treated from the end of their 2nd year of life either with saline (1 ml/kg, s.c.) (n = 66) or with deprenyl (0.25 mg/kg, s.c.) (n = 66) three times a week until death. Whereas none of the two-year-old saline-treated rats displayed full scale sexual activity, this appeared in 64 out of 66 rats on deprenyl. The longest living rat in the saline-treated group lived 164 weeks. The average lifespan of the group was 147.05 +/- 0.56 weeks. The shortest living animal in the (-)deprenyl-treated group lived 171 weeks and the longest living rat died during the 226th week of its life. The average lifespan was 191.91 +/- 2.31 weeks. This is the first instance that a well-aimed medication prolonged lifespan of members of a species beyond their maximum age of death (182 weeks in the rat).

(2)
Life Sci 1989;45(6):525-31
Striatal dopamine, sexual activity and lifespan. Longevity of rats treated with (-)deprenyl.
Knoll J, Dallo J, Yen TT. Department of Pharmacology, Semmelweis University of Medicine, Budapest, Hungary.

The influence of longterm deprenyl treatment on the sexual performance and lifespan of male rats was studied. One hundred and thirty two rats were treated from the end of their 2nd year of life either with saline (1 ml/kg, s.c.) (n = 66) or with deprenyl (0.25 mg/kg, s.c.) (n = 66) three times a week until death. Whereas none of the two-year-old saline-treated rats displayed full scale sexual activity, this appeared in 64 out of 66 rats on deprenyl. The longest living rat in the saline-treated group lived 164 weeks. The lifespan of the group was 147.05 +/- 0.56 weeks. The shortest living animal in the (-)deprenyl-treated group lived 171 weeks and the longest living rat died during the 226th week of its life. The lifespan was 191.91 +/- 2.31 weeks. This is the first instance that a well aimed medication prolonged lifespan of members of a species beyond their maximum age of death (182 weeks in the rat). A close relation between sexual activity and lifespan was detected.

For those capable of understanding, who do the research on deprenyl, and have an intricate insights into the aging process know deprenyl and CR diet are the most proven means of increasing lifespan in animals and hold the best promise of compounds currently available for helping to increase lifespan in humans.

While few studies on supplements have shown a maximum lifespan effect (partly because very few people fund the research) the drug deprenyl has been studied with healthy mice showing an effect of increasing maximum lifespan.(1,2, see http://www.imminst.o...&f=199&t=384&s= for more research)

I actually already brought this up in a thread (without anyone responding), but.. Michael, for example brought very reasonable sounding severe criticism on deprenyl on another thread here. So again, what is your response to that?

http://www.imminst.o...t=0

quotes:

Deprenyl is often cited as a counterexample, but it really isn't. Yes, Knoll made an exciting single report (and repeated it in several journals), but he's the ONLY person to report an extension of max LS: lots of others show increases in av'g bu t not max, no extension at all, or even *increased* mortality. Flat ad hominem: Knoll had the patent on the stuff. See the desperate attempts to reconcile the data between different studies on pp. 3-8, esp. the lifespan discussions on pp 7-8, of (1). Much of this info (but without, alas, the unpublished stuff sumarized in (1)) is put in a tabular form in (2), which makes the fundamental lack of anything like a logical pattern in the results clear. IMO, this shows pretty clearly that even if you believe there's something to it as a life-extension drug, there is just no way that one can rationally USE it as such at this time as there is no basis upon which to reasonably extrapolate a dose which can be expected to consistently extend even AV'G LS in humans.

There are no trials in normal, healthy humans, & the studies in both early and late PD are in sum quite inconclusive on the safety of deprenyl. See:

http://groups.google.....4A@aimnet.com
http://groups.google.....BC@aimnet.com
http://groups.google.....84@aimnet.com

http://bmj.com/cgi/c...ll/317/7153/252
http://bmj.com/cgi/c...l/316/7139/1191
http://groups.google...m&output=gplain

(The first 3 largely go over the same ground, albeit from slightly
different angles; the others cover newer material).

..........................
 
It doesn't appear to give any reliable benefits in animal systems; it seems to kill the folks it's designed to TREAT; I just do not see how the risk:benefit calculation can be fudged to make it come out in favor of use by young, healthy people.

So when I say that "Knoll made an exciting single report (and repeated it in several journals), but he's the ONLY person to report an extension of max LS: lots of others show increases in av'g bu t not max, no extension at all, or even *increased* mortality", I'm referring to this failure to extend the normal, healthy organism's lifespan, not to the alleviation of premature mortality in short-lived strains or animals raised under poor husbandry. It's easy to reduce mortality by antioxidants in short-lived strains or chorts -- it's been done with any number of compounds, from Harnam on -- and deprenyl has certainly been reported to do this several times, although (again) it has also increased mortality in others (eg (6)).

That does not seem like strong case for deprenyl at all, it might actually be a life shortening drug. The two papers you refer to, actually relying on the ONE same study, were made by the patent owner of deprenyl J. Knoll (expliting also other questionable scientific behaviour, making one very suspicious of any results made by him regarding deprenyl). Despite rigorous efforts by other researchers, the max life extension could not be achieved again. Instead what was gotten were mixed results of increased average life span, no increase of anything and DECREASE of lifespan. Furthermore, there has been serious question about the safety of deprenyl on humans based on PD studies.

also

For those capable of understanding, who do the research on deprenyl, and have an intricate insights into the aging process know deprenyl

regarding this aspect:

A recent editorial comment on the study from which the last post is
abstracted:

http://www.neurology...s/55/12/1785#29

"Laboratory studies suggest that selegiline has properties that
theoretically could confer neuroprotection; however, evidence for this
in clinical trials is unfortunately lacking. ... Prescribing
medications such as selegiline on faith, with little evidence-based
efficacy, IGNORES THE NEGATIVE SIDE EFFECTS OF THIS PRACTISE, including
unnecessary expense to the patient, and the potential of deleterious
drug interations. (ref. 14)." The comment seems especially relevant in
the present discussion.

Also, basing such long term intervention only on theoretical arguments without having actual clinical proof could be very unwise. Theories change, we should expect clinical results (if such are obtainable) rather than only theoretical arguments. Are you for example aware of the thread I started regarding the essential function of ROS and possibly already optimized anti-oxidant defense in mammals?

http://www.imminst.o...394

In the next paper they created a Drosophila strain with high levels of antioxidants and a lower production of ROS. Interestingly, the animals actually live less than controls:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....61&query_hl=112

This seems to support the idea that ROS are not just damaging compounds, but essential biological molecules used in a myriad of functions. On this subject, I have a paper on ROS that could be of interest to some of you:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....03&query_hl=116

Lastly, here's another recent paper showing that antioxidant protection does not correlate with longevity in rodents, in line with many other results suggesting that antioxidant protection is already optimized in mammals:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....18&query_hl=112

Aubrey confirmed the results regarding ROS production(on a PM to me asking to comment the results, I'm sure he won't mind me reproducing his reply):

Thing is, this is not news -- roles of ROS (and not just nitric oxide) in signalling have been kown for over a decade (check out Sue Goo Rhee in PubMed). I have cited this sort of work quite often in my papers as reasons for focusing on removal of accumulating but initially inert molecules and cells rather than removal or bioactive ones.

While this may not be news for Aubrey, it's certainly news for many people, for example Jaoa, me and I'm sure to plenty of other ImmInst members. I'm not sure if this conflicts with the theoretical argument for example of R-ALA, because I do not know the actual mechanism of R-ALA. From my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong), based on these results, a substance that decreases ROS production also in bioactive cells (and not only in inert cells), rather than only making the oxidative stress by ROS production to other cells less harmful, might have a life decreasing effect. This would be caused by intefering with essential signalling systems. But again, I'm not sure whether R-ALA acts through such mechanism, but it might (does anyone have a better understanding of these issues?). But I do know that at least for ALA the conducted rodent longevity studies have not been positive [1] (and not in my understanding for R-ALA either)

[1]Lee CK, Pugh TD, Klopp RG, Edwards J, Allison DB, Weindruch R, Prolla TA. The impact of alpha-lipoic acid, coenzyme Q10 and caloric restriction on life span and gene expression patterns in mice.Free Radic Biol Med. 2004 Apr 15;36(8):1043-57.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....5&dopt=Citation

PS:Somebody please fix the bugs on this f***ing editor! [ang]

Edited by opales, 05 November 2005 - 01:22 PM.

I haven't been here all that long, but it seems to me that Life Mirage is a very busy person that isn't interested in getting into pissing contests over biochemistry and barely has enough time to share his opinions.

In other words, I don't think you're likely to pin LM down to rebutting points.

It is very helpful, though, that you like to debate and rebut, which brings much light to the topic. Thank you.

Well, I'd love for the debate to continue. There have been times when I've raised similar points of critical thought in reaction to the indiscriminate use of supplements and gotten almost nowhere, unfortunately.

opales

You are obviously new here.... I've discussed my view on deprenyl & antiaging for the last 4 years on Imminst. I have several degrees, a very high IQ, and i really don't care to discuss this subject with newcomers such as you and Michael. If you want to come to a better understanding of aging and the effects of deprenyl, R-Lipoic acid, and other compounds then I suggest reading all my posts on these subjects before asking me any more questions or even attempting to debate them with me...you should find most of your viewpoints are incorrect.

Yes I've read all of yours and michael posts and contained myself from commenting until now.

My 2 cents on topics

It's my belief that none of current single supplements will extend life span for as much as immportalist hope (30 years is still just a blis compared to being "imortal"). Probably all the best current supplements combined together could extend life, but again we're talking about maybe decades not milleniums.

People who use suppments, from those who juse use centrum, to those who take tons of health supplements and nootropics are not trying to be immortal. They simply want to be healthy and enhance their living experience. Naturally by this alone, life span could be extended above average.
I've seen great deal of old people who just pray to die before they get so sick that life will be a living hell for them.
I'm 25 (26 in few days), and I'm taking supplements simply to be healtiher for longer, not to live longer in first place(thought i won't mind living both longer and healthier). I'd rather live up to my 40 as a healthly person, than have some very bad illness and depends on other to feed me or so and live 100 years.

opales

You are obviously new here.... I've discussed my view on deprenyl & antiaging for the last 4 years on Imminst. I have several degrees, a very high IQ, and i really don't care to discuss this subject with newcomers such as you and Michael. If you want to come to a better understanding of aging and the effects of deprenyl, R-Lipoic acid, and other compounds then I suggest reading all my posts on these subjects before asking me any more questions or even attempting to debate them with me...you should find most of your viewpoints are incorrect.

Yes I've read all of yours and michael posts and contained myself from commenting until now.

LifeMirage,

While you have obviously done your share of research and given tremendous contribution to the community, I am somewhat suprised that you are not more emphatetic towards the, possibly gratuitous, concerns regarding all these substances (nootropics and supplements). After all, you must realize that some of your recommendations, for example regarding deprenyl, are currently not being put forward by large medical establishments or being pondered in the major medical journals. While this is not excactly proof of anything, it does raise the question:why is this, if they are supposed to be so great?. Those people are the best medical scientists in the world and some of them, believe or not, genuinly try to help people. In that context, I think the request for rigorous argumentation every now and then why they are wrong or ignorant does not seem very unreasonable, even if put forward by a newcomer. I can personally say that had you responded convincingly, based on data and logic, to Michael's (who is NOT a newcomer but a respected and established member of the life-extension community) earlier criticism on deprenyl, I would probably have been much more receptive towards any other recommendations of yours also.

Also, I am convinced that people have way too optimistic view towards the potential overall impact of supplements, thus causing exaggaration of the "free-rider" problem in detriment to MPrize. An implication of this was revealed once again above, in Da Senses comments, where he ballbarked the effect of "best current supplements" to decades. Even if my concerns about the data backing these substances turned out completely wrong, I would still say that decades is GROSS overestimation. This even if you actually knew what these best current supplements were, as taking all would probably result in non-optimal effects (due unwanted side-effects etc.). I am fairly confident in saying the effects are very likely limited to a few YEARS on average and most certainly to a good deal less than a decade. if you disagree with this, I really feel that the burden of proof lays on you. I think that if people had a more realistic view towards the potential impact of supplements, donating to MPrize would become a much more viable option.

Still, I honestly feel that based on the data available to me, the criticism put forward by me or Michael was more than justified. If you do not feel so, you must think we missed some data, so perhaps I really need to go over your posts and presented material more throughly. I'll do that, but I will also go through other sources discussing these matters. If I am not still convinced, I'll report back very quickly

I hope everyone realizes that nothing discussed here is meant to be personal and that we are all aiming towards the same goal, there are just differences how people feel we should get there. Rationality and science deliver us the promise we thrive, but we cannot afford make many misteps; that is why even such respected authorities as Aubrey or LifeMirage should and must also be challenged constanly.

respectfully

-Olli

Edited by opales, 17 January 2006 - 12:48 AM.

I daresay most who donate to Mprize also take supplements. False dichotomy IMO. If you can only afford to do one you have a failure of the imagination. The most interesting donor was the one who gave 50 cents. That probably saved a life. 10s of thousands look at the site and don't donate. 50 cents is infinitely larger than zero...and was most welcome.

LifeMirage,

While you have obviously done your share of research and given tremendous contribution to the community, I am somewhat suprised that you are not more emphatetic towards the, possibly gratuitous, concerns regarding all these substances (nootropics and supplements). After all, you must realize that some of your recommendations, for example regarding deprenyl, are currently not being put forward by large medical establishments or being pondered in the major medical journals.

Life Extension research is a minority in the research world…very few researchers or doctors (aka medical establishment) believe in most supplements or that aging should even be considered a disease or something that should be stopped.

Unless you can make money or patent it (most supplements can't be patent so massive research is not done in the US) research in these regards usually is limited.

I have never said the research in the 4 animals species done by several researchers aside from Knoll (most of the research in the Deprenyl Research in the Nootropics Research forum is not done from Knoll) would result in an increase in maximum lifespan in humans, as in humans research has not been done (and probably never will), but the mode of action of increasing antioxidant enzymes (which is part of how CR works) does help reduce free radicals in the human body and is one of the best ways to reduce a known cause of aging. Deprenyl has been researched in depression with good results and minor safety issues. LEF is a strong supporter of Deprenyl being used for antiaging purposes as well as many other respectable organizations. A more potent form of deprenyl called rasagiline has recently been approved in Israel and in Europe…pending approval in the US for Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s Disease. Based on the research it has even more potent antiaging-neuroprotective effects and safer. (1)

You’ll forgive me if I don’t post would alot of references but you can review Medline, as I an in the process of writing over 100 articles on supplements, drugs, and causes and factors of antiaging. And still working on my first book.

(1)Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2001 Apr;928:248-60.
Do antioxidant strategies work against aging and age-associated disorders? Propargylamines: a possible antioxidant strategy.

Kitani K, Minami C, Yamamoto T, Maruyama W, Kanai S, Ivy GO, Carrillo MC.

National Institute for Longevity Sciences, Obu, Aichi, Japan. kitani@nils.go.jp

The free radical theory of aging was initially proposed by Harman half a century ago primarily to explain biological aging processes. Although administration of so-called antioxidant chemicals, which have been tested in the past for several decades, turned out to be mostly ineffective in prolonging the life spans of animals, the same theory of age-associated diseases appears to be increasingly supported in the last two decades. Despite these difficulties, the success in extending life span of 4 different animal species (mice, rats, hamsters, and dogs) with (-)deprenyl (including a study of our group) indicates that there might exist another type of antioxidant strategy in addition to a simple administration of antioxidant chemicals. (-)Deprenyl has also been shown to increase superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) activities selectively in brain dopaminergic tissues. Interestingly, we have recently shown that another propargylamine, rasagiline not only increases antioxidant enzyme activities (CAT and SOD) in brain dopaminergic regions as (-)deprenyl does, but also increases CAT and SOD activities in extrabrain catecholaminergic systems such as the heart and kidneys as well. These recent observations coupled with previous observations on the life span of animals with (-)deprenyl suggest that pharmacological modulation of endogenous antioxidant enzyme activities could be one potential antioxidant strategy against aging and age-associated disorders. If the causal relationship between the two effects of (-)deprenyl exists as we hypothesized, we might be able to advance the elucidation of mechanism(s) of aging based on the free radical theory of aging.

While this is not excactly proof of anything, it does raise the question:why is this, if they are supposed to be so great?. Those people are the best medical scientists in the world and some of them, believe or not, genuinly try to help people. In that context, I think the request for rigorous argumentation every now and then why they are wrong or ignorant does not seem very unreasonable, even if put forward by a newcomer. I can personally say that had you responded convincingly, based on data and logic, to Michael's (who is NOT a newcomer but a respected and established member of the life-extension community) earlier criticism on deprenyl, I would probably have been much more receptive towards any other recommendations of yours also.

There are many great researchers out there but most of them in my opinion are focusing on new compounds they can patent and make money…others unfortunately are researching down the wrong path. As far as my newcomer statement I referring to your and michael's posting in total and in the dietary supplements forums. I had already commented on deprenyl several times in the past and apologize for being short with you but I have lost some interest in repeating myself to everyone raising the same questions every few months.

Personally if did an animal study with what i know I would probably win the MPrize.

Also, I am convinced that people have way too optimistic view towards the potential overall impact of supplements, thus causing exaggaration of the "free-rider" problem in detriment to MPrize. An implication of this was revealed once again above, in Da Senses comments, where he ballbarked the effect of "best current supplements" to decades. Even if my concerns about the data backing these substances turned out completely wrong, I would still say that decades is GROSS overestimation. This even if you actually knew what these best current supplements were, as taking all would probably result in non-optimal effects (due unwanted side-effects etc.). I am fairly confident in saying the effects are very likely limited to a few YEARS on average and most certainly to a good deal less than a decade. if you disagree with this, I really feel that the burden of proof lays on you. I think that if people had a more realistic view towards the potential impact of supplements, donating to MPrize would become a much more viable option.

I view it quite the opposite…I think the research would not benefit me from Mprize anytime soon when there are already compounds available I can take that will improve my health and help reduce the know causes and factors with aging.

Still, I honestly feel that based on the data available to me, the criticism put forward by me or Michael was more than justified. If you do not feel so, you must think we missed some data, so perhaps I really need to go over your posts and presented material more throughly. I'll do that, but I will also go through other sources discussing these matters. If I am not still convinced, I'll report back very quickly

The biggest factor in aging is free radical damage….compounds that increase SOD and Catalase has shown a remarkable antiaging effect in several animal studies…taking these compounds benefit us to some degree by reducing free radicals effectively. Its an over simplified statement but I hope it conveys my viewpoint on this matter. Hydergine, Bacopa, centrophenoxine, and several other compounds have been shown to increase SOD, but none with the impressive research on deprenyl with lifespan.

Glycation is another age related factor that I believe needs to be reduced ALT-711, Carnosine, Benfotiamine, Pyridoxamine and other compounds hold the best promise for reducing this factor in humans. The research is sufficient for me to recommend and take these compounds, but everyone has there own view.

I’ve done regular blood testing for well over 15 years while taking all these compounds and based on my results I know there are making the difference. If I ever have the money to do a research antiaging study I would not at the moment I am focusing on a study with nootropics in humans.

I'm all for the mouse

Thanks for contributing all that Lifemirage.

opales
i'm not saying current supplements will extend maximum human life span, but could, in my case at least, extend average life span. Difference between average and maximum life span at humans is few decades.

Ack! I misread the poll. I took the "non MPrize option" to mean that I could spend my money on things like: healthy diet, supplements, excerise opportunities, leisure activities, etc.

At that point, it's the free rider problem. Those things above will improve my life span such that I will benefit from the MPrize without having donated any money.

But, supplements vs. MPrize? MPrize, all the way.

ahhh - the free rider - makes one proud to be part of the human race

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

I just would like to ask you about your opinion on the following "facts" I have read about the population, etc.

In 1950 world population was about 2.5 billions, Right now it's about 6.355 billions,
http://www.populationworld.com/
"Births/Deaths
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/pcwe

World Vital Events Per Time Unit: 2004
(Figures may not add to totals due to rounding)
----------------------------------------------------------
Natural
Time unit______Births______Deaths_______increase
----------------------------------------------------------
Year_______129,108,390___56,540,896___72,567,494
Month______10,759,033____4,711,741____6,047,291
Day________352,755______154,483_____198,272
Hour________14,698______6,437_______8,261
Minute________245_______107_________138
Second_______ 4.1_______1.8__________2.3
----------------------------------------------------------
"
So there is an increase in the world population by 2.3 people, every second, and the whole population trend represents an exponential curve which is soon forecasted to start levelling off, I believe that that will happen sooner then anyone predicts. Also I don't believe any population info before the 17th century because it's based on fictional modern history, In reality the chronology of historic events have happend much later in time then most people realize (before 17th century).
My question is that - just by how much are you planning for the maximum lifespan to be extended? And how do you think that will impact the world population which is already getting out of hand (for now), and what means do you think should be implemented after the general maximum lifespan have been extended. Of course, I do realize that even if a scientific research breakthrough will happen in the close future which will allow an average person to be able to live much longer , that mostly the people who leave in developed countries are more likely to benefit, at least at first. How will birth/death ratio will have to be adjusted, while knowing thats its virtually impossible to do?

Well, you can see in which direction I'm going with this, so you are welcomed to expand on the topic. Please advise.