Sodium rutin extends lifespan and health span in mice by 10%(pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Sodium rutin extends lifespan and health span in mice by 10%
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33555034/
121 comments
I agree. Lots of studies seem focused on slightly slowing the accumulation of damage in our bodies over time, but this is a battle that can only be lost. Entropy always wins. What we need is tech to repair our bodies. The most promising candidate (in my uneducated opinion) is using gene editing to correct the mutations that accumulate in our genomes.
You need to change every old cell in your body to a young version of the cell every once in a while.
The difficult part is the neurons, you need to change them one by one, and restore all their connections, and internal parameters.
This is my theory on how you can “refresh” yourself while keeping you you.
The difficult part is the neurons, you need to change them one by one, and restore all their connections, and internal parameters.
This is my theory on how you can “refresh” yourself while keeping you you.
To which extent does the brain not repair neurons already?
In regards to the physical changes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596698/
> It has been widely found that the volume of the brain and/or its weight declines with age at a rate of around 5% per decade after age 401 with the actual rate of decline possibly increasing with age particularly over age 70.
I feel like that's probably a big one without getting into the functional changes.
And just adding a bunch of neurons would probably be like giving your computer a new HDD. I think that the argument is about how it's important to preserve the information contained within the old neurons somehow.
> It has been widely found that the volume of the brain and/or its weight declines with age at a rate of around 5% per decade after age 401 with the actual rate of decline possibly increasing with age particularly over age 70.
I feel like that's probably a big one without getting into the functional changes.
And just adding a bunch of neurons would probably be like giving your computer a new HDD. I think that the argument is about how it's important to preserve the information contained within the old neurons somehow.
There was a study that claimed to prove that antioxidants can prevent the stress that causes sleep deprivation to be fatal, and that this fundamentally originates in the digestive system across quite different species.
They didn't extend lifespan compared to baseline, but they restored baseline lifespan to sleep deprived subjects by feeding them various substances.
They tried a bunch of antioxidants, the most readily available one was melatonin, I think, but it's not clear to me what it all means.
If mice and fruit flies can live without sleep, would it work for humans? Do antioxidants help humans with sleep disorders?
All I know is that over the counter melatonin does not seem to work any miracles for me. I have no idea if it would make me capable of staying awake 24/7 if forced.
Lifespan is a separate issue, but you could look at eliminating sleep, if possible, as living 1/3 (or more) longer.
They didn't extend lifespan compared to baseline, but they restored baseline lifespan to sleep deprived subjects by feeding them various substances.
They tried a bunch of antioxidants, the most readily available one was melatonin, I think, but it's not clear to me what it all means.
If mice and fruit flies can live without sleep, would it work for humans? Do antioxidants help humans with sleep disorders?
All I know is that over the counter melatonin does not seem to work any miracles for me. I have no idea if it would make me capable of staying awake 24/7 if forced.
Lifespan is a separate issue, but you could look at eliminating sleep, if possible, as living 1/3 (or more) longer.
What kind of miracles do you expect from melatonin?
To make you fall asleep?
Do not take more than 450micro grams, over the counter contains waaay to much melatonin.
Melatonin is an antioxidant, but it is not a miracle hormone.
It just signals the absence of light. Owls and other nocturnal animals get wide awake in the presence of melatonin, humans and diurnal animals get sleepy.
To make you fall asleep?
Do not take more than 450micro grams, over the counter contains waaay to much melatonin.
Melatonin is an antioxidant, but it is not a miracle hormone.
It just signals the absence of light. Owls and other nocturnal animals get wide awake in the presence of melatonin, humans and diurnal animals get sleepy.
I don't expect anything in particular. As I wrote, I've tried it and it doesn't do anything amazing. I had previously tried it on recommendation from a sleep specialist before I read about the idea that it reverses metabolic damage from sleep deprivation.
Over the counter supplements usually seem to have way too large a dose, and I've read they can be very inconsistent too.
The point is, I read this amazing study, and it may be somehow incorrect or even fraudulent, but it is what it is. Sleep deprivation kills. The claim is that via, not one, but any of several substances, that can be reversed, at least in lab insects/animals.
I definitely am not advising anyone take any supplements. I want to clearly state that I don't experience any particular beneficial effects from anything I've tried.
I just am saying that uncovering the reason why sleep is needed has to have world changing applications, or end up as a spectacular debunking, it seems to me.
Over the counter supplements usually seem to have way too large a dose, and I've read they can be very inconsistent too.
The point is, I read this amazing study, and it may be somehow incorrect or even fraudulent, but it is what it is. Sleep deprivation kills. The claim is that via, not one, but any of several substances, that can be reversed, at least in lab insects/animals.
I definitely am not advising anyone take any supplements. I want to clearly state that I don't experience any particular beneficial effects from anything I've tried.
I just am saying that uncovering the reason why sleep is needed has to have world changing applications, or end up as a spectacular debunking, it seems to me.
I understand and I know certain people use mega-dosages(10-15 miligrams) to protect themselves from neurotoxicity of certain drugs, but I'm sure that's just bro-science.
I would steer away from melatonin as a supplement for anything other than sleep, because it is a powerful hormone and while the science is lacking, it's better not to mess with such a powerful and important hormone.
I would steer away from melatonin as a supplement for anything other than sleep, because it is a powerful hormone and while the science is lacking, it's better not to mess with such a powerful and important hormone.
I really wish for reform in regulation, so that quality and dosage of over the counter supplements could be trusted. I haven't heard of any groundswell of support for that, though. People say that it's a problem with cannabis supplements too.
What's with the exact 450 mcg recommendation?
What happens if I take more?
What happens if I take more?
The precise dose that works for you may vary, but a significant sign you've taken too much is feeling really tired and groggy the following day. For me up to about 1mg seems to work fine but I've not used it enough to see how well it works below that.
There was a MIT study that the optimal doaage for sleep is around 300mcg.
The body produces about 30mcg of melatonin afik, and the oral bioavailability of melatonin is about 10% so, the math works out.
More might produce excessive grogginess after you wake up, and in my experience it leads to fast tolerance -- so it doesn't work; 300-450mcg works in perpetuity for me.
More might produce excessive grogginess after you wake up, and in my experience it leads to fast tolerance -- so it doesn't work; 300-450mcg works in perpetuity for me.
I get really bad restless legs on enough of it- so I get groggy, but end up taking longer to sleep and feel less rested after.
If we do increase lifespan or isn’t going to be because we found a magic pill, it will be because we found a few metrics we can provide external feedback to control an important variable.
interesting to come across Quercetin, which was also trumpeted as the wonder supplement for minimizing ill effects of diseases like Covid19
See the Zstack prophylactic protocol from Dr Zelenko, where he suggests this as the better alternative to his earlier recommendation, HCQ, to act as an ionophore for Zinc.
This paper explains the details of Quercetin as a zinc ionophore.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jf5014633
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jf5014633
You will also find it in red wine, onions, green tea.
> mice on a keto diet
There's no single mention of diet in the abstracts and non-paywalled versions. Care to share a link or screenshot to support your claim?
There's no single mention of diet in the abstracts and non-paywalled versions. Care to share a link or screenshot to support your claim?
I think you can read the parent as saying the mice on the keto diet, were in another different experiment, to compare this one to.
If I am reading it correctly...
If I am reading it correctly...
You clearly didn't follow geroprotectors advances.
Classical antioxidants are weak that's for sure. Mitochondrial targeted antioxidants are one millionth time more potent (this is NOT an exageration), as such they can double lifespan and eliminate entire classes of diseases such as Alzeihmer and Parkinson.
Only a small minority of people are erudite in geroprotectors today and as such only this small minority will be part of the first generation to have significantly better ageing.
Such as what substances? And are they available in supplements?
There are many but the most studied one is skq1.
It is marketed as eye drops for slowing age related eye diseases such as macular degeneration. It is also marketed as cosmetics to be applied on the skin as an anti wrinkle agent.
Of course those uses are not enough geroprotective.
The oral pill is in the work and will very probably be the breakthrough of the century though, it will take ~a decade before being FDA approved.
However indeed the currently marketed cosmetics are the same active substance and can be off-label ingested orally (or sublingually). Anybody doing that should read the pubmed papers about Skq1 in order to make an informed decision.
The other contender is Fullerene C60 which is bioavailable when diluted in oil (e.g olive oil) however it doesn't cross the blood brain barrier and hence won't stop your current neurodegeneration.
The other contender is Fullerene C60 which is bioavailable when diluted in oil (e.g olive oil) however it doesn't cross the blood brain barrier and hence won't stop your current neurodegeneration.
Theres lots of info about C60 on Longecity but I think that forum is slowly dying now.
Could you share where you're reading info about SkQ1? Is it another life extension forum?
Best source to purchase?
MitoQ is in the same class as SkQ1 and is already marketed as a pill. Both are made up of an antioxidant anion and a phosphonium cation for getting into mitochondria. However, a rare controlled study against using a random inert anion with the same mitochondrial penetrator shows similar effects as the purported geroprotectors [1] suggesting that nobody has any idea how these molecules work to the extent they work at all. But it’s definitely an interesting area of research.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31139092/
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31139092/
Links please?
This says one of the highest natural sources is from olives. Association with Mediterranean diet maybe? Anyway this is linked to quercetin and other citrus bioflavonoids supplements. Pretty sure selegiline still knocks this out of the park though.
We should investigate the benefits of sodium as well. Sodium is vitally important for many bodily function and is a very misunderstood nutrient.
Historically people consumed much more salt, and don't give me the "people used to die when they were 35" nonsense. There is a big difference between being kicked by a horse vs dying of a stroke.
Historically people consumed much more salt, and don't give me the "people used to die when they were 35" nonsense. There is a big difference between being kicked by a horse vs dying of a stroke.
People used to die when they were 35 because they were getting stomach cancer from a lifetime of eating salted meat. The invention of refrigeration was one of the most important public health accomplishments of the last 150 years.
No, salted meat wouldn't make a list of the top ten causes of mortality back then. I doubt even the top 100, but I can't say for certain without doing more work than a comment is worth.
Apparently lots of people disagree with something that seems obvious? Source?
Apparently lots of people disagree with something that seems obvious? Source?
Do you honestly think that "salted meat" would be listed on a death certificate?
Here's a source for you: https://www.nature.com/articles/jhh2008144
Here's a source for you: https://www.nature.com/articles/jhh2008144
> Do you honestly think that "salted meat" would be listed on a death certificate?
Strawman argument.
So stomach cancer is currently 10% of cancer deaths, and cancer is currently the second leading cause of death at all ages. One can't extrapolate that back historically safely because cancer primarily affects the old and people didn't live long enough back then. But even if we just single out stomach cancer and assume incorrectly that 100% is attributed to salt, when frankly that would be a minority of stomach cancers, then it still wouldn't even make the top ten causes of mortality today. Never mind historically when people commonly died from lots of things we no longer worry about, like simple bacterial infections, childbirth, or poor dental hygiene.
The OPs argument is ridiculous and I'm surprised how many people can't see that.
Strawman argument.
So stomach cancer is currently 10% of cancer deaths, and cancer is currently the second leading cause of death at all ages. One can't extrapolate that back historically safely because cancer primarily affects the old and people didn't live long enough back then. But even if we just single out stomach cancer and assume incorrectly that 100% is attributed to salt, when frankly that would be a minority of stomach cancers, then it still wouldn't even make the top ten causes of mortality today. Never mind historically when people commonly died from lots of things we no longer worry about, like simple bacterial infections, childbirth, or poor dental hygiene.
The OPs argument is ridiculous and I'm surprised how many people can't see that.
No, they died from being overly alkaline, from eating too many vegetables. Get your facts straight.
Infant mortality is what brought the average lifespan down.
People also had harsher lives and were exposed to a wide variety of stressors, diseases, malnutrition, etc.
People also had harsher lives and were exposed to a wide variety of stressors, diseases, malnutrition, etc.
Life expectancy at birth, not lifespan.
Life expectancy at birth is a worthless statistic to compare to when looking at modern humans. Infant mortality was so high that it distorts the numbers. A more useful statistic is the modal age of adult death, which peaks between 65 and 75 across most estimates, regardless of era:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1728-4457....
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/when-did-humans-star...
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/when-did-humans-star...
https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/cancer-currents-blog/2020...
Everything old is new again.
Everything old is new again.
Wasn't most meat also salted in the past?
Yes; Salt was among the first preservatives discovered and used.
Bacteria landing on salt will quickly find all of their water exiting their insides towards the salt. Life ceases to function sans water.
Bacteria landing on salt will quickly find all of their water exiting their insides towards the salt. Life ceases to function sans water.
Great description. Now I'm grossed out but had fun imagining bacteria dying perpetually until it's some sort of additional crust on the dried meat..
Depends on the past.
A lot of meat is salted today... Ham... Bacon....
I think there is a substantial difference as back then the meat was literally "submerged" in salt to preserve it.
Nowadays I believe it's simply lightly coated in salt to only maximize flavor since we have fridges.
Nowadays I believe it's simply lightly coated in salt to only maximize flavor since we have fridges.
You can still buy salt beef. It usually comes in a plastic tub. You must soak it in water before cooking in order to remove most of the salt otherwise it is inedible.
I love sodium and virtually never heard of this "sodium is the devil" narrative before! (I know right, was I living in a cave?) Anyway a few weeks back me and my friend was ordering Chinese food. And he was like, meh Chinese food has too much sodium let's order something else. Turns out sodium is bad because it accumulates water in your body? After that I started being super particular about my sodium intake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonese_salted_fish#Health_c... was an eye-opener to me
This[1] rather lengthy article suggests that the issue there isn't the salt, but rather the interaction between the salt and the raw fish which causes carcinogenic compounds to form.
1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304384/
1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304384/
Maybe your friend was referencing MSG? Makes me extremely thirsty hours later, and then I HAVE to "accumulate water in my body", on purpose, to satiate the unquenchable thirst caused by MSG
I don't want to kick the hornet's nest, but isn't MSG avoidance just an example of nocebo? It's just a salt right and its connection to headaches has never actually been established, it's jut something people say.
> isn't MSG avoidance just an example of nocebo?
In fact, the fears around MSG seem to have some overlap with negative racial stereotypes:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51139005
In fact, the fears around MSG seem to have some overlap with negative racial stereotypes:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51139005
I have heard of some people experiencing sensitivities to MSG, but as the exception and not the norm.
I imagine they are feeling a similar thing to the people that can “feel” 5G cell towers
never got a headache ever, just super thirsty afterwards
MSG is often used as a food additive in combination with heroic amounts of fat and sugar which would otherwise be unpalatable without it - particularly in a Chinese restaurant setting which is what people associate with MSG...
You're probably experiencing a sugar crash.
I suspect you don't experience the same after eating a bag of Doritos but they're absolutely loaded with MSG.. plus in all likelihood also sodium inosinate, sodium guanylate and who knows what else.
You're probably experiencing a sugar crash.
I suspect you don't experience the same after eating a bag of Doritos but they're absolutely loaded with MSG.. plus in all likelihood also sodium inosinate, sodium guanylate and who knows what else.
Many foods contain rather large amounts of glutamate naturally. Do you get especially thirsty after eating meat or dairy?
Chinese restaurants in the US are notorious for using excess salt and sweeteners.
Though to be fair it's a form of arms race, most US restaurants overdo it if the regional palette has become desensitized. It's not strictly a Chinese restaurant issue.
But many Chinese dishes on the menus are defined by their sweet and salty axis, and being in this environment they're pushed to the extreme.
Though to be fair it's a form of arms race, most US restaurants overdo it if the regional palette has become desensitized. It's not strictly a Chinese restaurant issue.
But many Chinese dishes on the menus are defined by their sweet and salty axis, and being in this environment they're pushed to the extreme.
I don't think sodium accumulates in the body - Na+ and Cl- are both ions which are relevant to a wide variety of cellular processes, and as far as I know your body has a lot of tools for maintaining the balance of electrolytes in the body.
As far as I understand, the health risk associated with excess sodium intake is high blood pressure, i.e. more stress on your cardiovascular system.
As far as I understand, the health risk associated with excess sodium intake is high blood pressure, i.e. more stress on your cardiovascular system.
Kidneys too, last time I looked. Apparently it's kind of a feedback loop where salt makes them work poorly which leads to high pressure which leads to damage and repeat. Some details here:
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/kidneys-salt-and-blood-pr...
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/kidneys-salt-and-blood-pr...
As I understand it's related in that salt dissolves in water easily and somehow causes your body to retain water. This in turn increases the water in your blood (plasma I guess), thus the pressure increases. A 'water pill' (hydrochlorothiazide) is often prescribed along with blood pressure reducing medicine to make you urinate and remove water from your system. While my salt intake is normal, it wasn't until I was prescribed a water pill in conjunction with my blood pressure pill that I was able to see better results and also able to take less of the blood pressure med.
I mean that is just basic chemistry. Basically your body wants to have a certain concentration of ions in your bodily fluid, so if you put more sodium in, your body needs to hold on to more water to dilute it until you're able to pee it out
Sodium levels are so vitally important to our health that we we have a couple (more or less) of specialized organs for keeping it at the right balance, called 'kidneys'. Oh, OK, they also balance magnesium and potassium and maybe some other iums, but the little glomerules function by pumping sodium ions around to adjust concentrations of solute on either side of a semi-permeable membrane. Or something.
Don't worry about sodium unless you've been diagnosed with a metabolic problem.
Don't worry about sodium unless you've been diagnosed with a metabolic problem.
Don't agree with that. For example here it shows that sodium might increase your chances to survive heart desease: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/good-heart-keep-holding-...
Kidneys require sodium to function properly.
Adrenals via aldosterone impact sodium. And when you're stressed, your adrenals might be in a bad shape.
I think sodium is a big deal. And some people hit with that especially hard.
I think GP meant don't worry about an excess of sodium.
I do feel kind of bloaty when I eat wretched excesses of sodium all at once, usually ramen, but it passes.
Generally eat a high salt diet, add other minerals (mostly potassium) to drinking water, and take magnesium glycinate before bed. Minerals are easy to eliminate and if I'm not getting enough there's no alternative.
I do feel kind of bloaty when I eat wretched excesses of sodium all at once, usually ramen, but it passes.
Generally eat a high salt diet, add other minerals (mostly potassium) to drinking water, and take magnesium glycinate before bed. Minerals are easy to eliminate and if I'm not getting enough there's no alternative.
I have pre-hypertension which is a BP between 120/80 and 140/90 and the quickest 'fix' is to follow a lower sodium diet. I think it's pretty common for people around 'parent' age to have this, especially if they eat the SAD, so it'll be something you hear as a kid. I know I did!
granted this org/source isn't the most credible, it still made for an interesting listen. https://wisetraditions.libsyn.com/105-salt-friend-or-foe-pri...
I have a lot of older tennis friends and they suffer through cramps all the time. I ask if they’re getting enough sodium after sweating for hours and they say they’re on low sodium diets for blood pressure.
Folks you need to replace your sodium when you sweat!
/soapbox
Folks you need to replace your sodium when you sweat!
/soapbox
Doing strength exercises for many years now, increased sodium reduced muscle cramps and lowered recovery times. If you experience nightly cramps, increase the regular sodium and magnesium citrate intake and reduce when symptom free. Unrelated, doing breathing exercises just before going Max helps to execute in near tranquility.
There's a strong genetic factor in the link between sodium intake and blood pressure. Some people are very sensitive to it, others can consume larger amounts without causing hypertension.
There are also sex differences in sodium handling ability.
Older women who have taken blood pressure medication for many years, e.g. 10 to 20 years, have risks of losing the ability to control well the concentrations of sodium and potassium in the blood.
If they follow a low-sodium diet, they have a high risk of hyponatremia (too little sodium in the body). Depending on the diet, hypokalemia (too little potassium in the body) is also possible.
If these conditions are not diagnosed promptly, severe illness or even death are the consequence.
Unfortunately, I was not aware of these risks. My mother belonged to this risk group, but nobody knew this and her periodic blood tests were perfect, because they included many other tests, except the sodium and potassium concentrations in blood, which are mandatory to detect this problem.
My mother had very serious problems because hyponatremia was detected too late, so I believe that more people should become aware of this risk.
There are a lot of old women taking medication for high blood pressure, so all should know that a periodic cheap test for sodium in blood can easily prevent reaching a stage when complete recovery becomes difficult or impossible.
Also, any low-sodium diet should actually measure or compute how much salt you eat, because too low sodium is even more dangerous than too high sodium.
Older women who have taken blood pressure medication for many years, e.g. 10 to 20 years, have risks of losing the ability to control well the concentrations of sodium and potassium in the blood.
If they follow a low-sodium diet, they have a high risk of hyponatremia (too little sodium in the body). Depending on the diet, hypokalemia (too little potassium in the body) is also possible.
If these conditions are not diagnosed promptly, severe illness or even death are the consequence.
Unfortunately, I was not aware of these risks. My mother belonged to this risk group, but nobody knew this and her periodic blood tests were perfect, because they included many other tests, except the sodium and potassium concentrations in blood, which are mandatory to detect this problem.
My mother had very serious problems because hyponatremia was detected too late, so I believe that more people should become aware of this risk.
There are a lot of old women taking medication for high blood pressure, so all should know that a periodic cheap test for sodium in blood can easily prevent reaching a stage when complete recovery becomes difficult or impossible.
Also, any low-sodium diet should actually measure or compute how much salt you eat, because too low sodium is even more dangerous than too high sodium.
I can't really remember the last time I sweated though, even though I do cycle 30-40 mins a day depending on the season.
People sweat regularly without any noticeable moisture droplets etc. As long as evaporation >= perspiration rate nothing builds up. It’s why a tight watch will often have moisture behind it even though you don’t seem to be sweating.
I've also heard that was an average, when at the time infant mortality was around 50%. https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past
Diet/longevity studies in mice aren't good sources of information for the general population. They are (at best) pilots/guides for further (more expensive) human testing.
Unless it's a treatment for an acute condition that you suffer from, and there's some logical basis for trusting the effect will equally apply to humans, there's no point in basing personal dietary behavior in any way off of such studies. And a lesser point is that there is likely enough agreed upon research in this area that you are not adhering to already! (Myself included, though I do try)
Of course, the people who might work on such trials might frequent HN, and research is just intrinsically interesting, so I'm not saying "this is a bad post".
Unless it's a treatment for an acute condition that you suffer from, and there's some logical basis for trusting the effect will equally apply to humans, there's no point in basing personal dietary behavior in any way off of such studies. And a lesser point is that there is likely enough agreed upon research in this area that you are not adhering to already! (Myself included, though I do try)
Of course, the people who might work on such trials might frequent HN, and research is just intrinsically interesting, so I'm not saying "this is a bad post".
Mice, by virtue of being vertebrates, and more specifically mammals, share much biology with us - from biochemistry, to cellular functions, to macro structures. There's a reasonable chance things that affect their bodies will affect ours as well.
Reasonable as in highly unlikely.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/
More than 95% of successful animal studies fail to progress further from human trials.
There's obviously a great need for doing these tests in a different fashion.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/
More than 95% of successful animal studies fail to progress further from human trials.
There's obviously a great need for doing these tests in a different fashion.
That is a justification for doing such studies, but it says nothing about whether they provide good enough evidence for dietary/behavioral changes in the general population. Why base our daily behavior on such thin evidence? Human trials should be the minimum requirement in the vast majority of cases.
I will offer anyone 100-1 odds that sodium rutin will not be approved by the FDA for human anti-aging purposes in the next 20 years.
Sure because the FDA doesn't recognize aging as a specific medical condition. It's too vague of a term. However it's somewhat possible that the FDA will approve sodium rutin as a treatment for some condition that tends to become more common with age.
"Somewhat possible", in the sense of "extremely unlikely" is correct. This is a pretty small effect size in mice. If it's even real in mice, it's very likely due to specific factors related to mice that live in a small box all their lives and eat the exact same cheap dry food every day.
Interesting result but needs confirmation in other studies, particularly as the rutin formulation seems to be homegrown by the research team.
Incidentally, I recently learned about the Interventions Testing Program [1,2]. This is an ongoing very well conducted study investigating different drugs and supplements for longevity extension in mice. Aside from being highly rigorous, reproducible and free of conflicts, the results of this are fascinating. Particularly striking is the benefit of drugs which reduce peak glycemia after meals (acarbose and canagliflozin) in male mice.
[1] https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/dab/interventions-testing-p...
[2] https://peterattiamd.com/richardmiller/
Incidentally, I recently learned about the Interventions Testing Program [1,2]. This is an ongoing very well conducted study investigating different drugs and supplements for longevity extension in mice. Aside from being highly rigorous, reproducible and free of conflicts, the results of this are fascinating. Particularly striking is the benefit of drugs which reduce peak glycemia after meals (acarbose and canagliflozin) in male mice.
[1] https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/dab/interventions-testing-p...
[2] https://peterattiamd.com/richardmiller/
Only 8% of experiments on mice work on humans… friendly reminder.
A review [0] found that only 37% of research on mice translate in humans.
But as someone interested in neurodegenerative diseases I can only recall that there were ~2500 clinical trials done on Alzheimer because of interesting results in mice and ... not a single one was effective in humans.
For less investigated diseases such as ALS or Parkinson it's about 700 trials without any success.
An excellent article discussing why mice studies are not applicable to humans, at least for ALS, is this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrneurol.2015.65
[0] http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/203577
For less investigated diseases such as ALS or Parkinson it's about 700 trials without any success.
An excellent article discussing why mice studies are not applicable to humans, at least for ALS, is this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrneurol.2015.65
[0] http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/203577
Do you have a reference on this? It'd be quite interesting to read further on why studies using mice are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure.
I read it years ago in a medical journal talking about the insanity of websites that post cutting edge research when it is only the early result.
Sorry not sure where it is located, but you could Google it.
You have locations like this: https://theconversation.com/of-mice-and-men-why-animal-trial...
It showed that of the most-cited animal studies in prestigious scientific journals, such as Nature and Cell, only 37% were replicated in subsequent human randomised trials and 18% were contradicted in human trials. It is safe to assume that less-cited animal studies in lesser journals would have an even lower strike rate.
Not sure why that is higher, but it is phrased weird.
Sorry not sure where it is located, but you could Google it.
You have locations like this: https://theconversation.com/of-mice-and-men-why-animal-trial...
It showed that of the most-cited animal studies in prestigious scientific journals, such as Nature and Cell, only 37% were replicated in subsequent human randomised trials and 18% were contradicted in human trials. It is safe to assume that less-cited animal studies in lesser journals would have an even lower strike rate.
Not sure why that is higher, but it is phrased weird.
Would also like some source/info on this, seems suspicious, like something that anti-cruelty organizations came up with and people are mindlessly believing and repeating...
Google on this one, as I read it years ago in a medical journal.
8% seems good to me, as that is the point of testing... but the point of the article was to avoid the hype of these early tests.
8% seems good to me, as that is the point of testing... but the point of the article was to avoid the hype of these early tests.
Source? It would be nice to scope such vague statements. Some kind of pharmaceutical mechanism of action ~totally transpose to the human while some other do not at all, it's heavily topic dependent.
For example mitochondrial targeted antioxidant are specy agnostic.
Google, not sure how that is vague :), it is a specific number I read in a medical journal years ago.
Perhaps it's part of their natural diet, and not part of the typical "lab diet".
I believe there are a whole slew of diet modifications that are believed to increase lifespan in humans >10%.
Doesn't make people eat that diet...
Doesn't make people eat that diet...
Mostly this seems to revolve around 'eat less', which is a challenge for many people.
1. The abstract is not great.
2. This is a study from China, including "School of Traditional Chinese Medicine"
2. This is a study from China, including "School of Traditional Chinese Medicine"
How do you measure "health" in percent? I don't think the article quantified that.
What is sodium rutin? I know about rutin but never heard about sodium rutin.
Headline is wrong. Only lifespan did extend by 10%. Not both.
Great news for aging rodents all around the world! Too bad most experiments that work on mice have no or negative effects on humans, so we probably won't be able to benefit from this.
> Too bad most experiments that work on mice have no or negative effects on humans
Really? I'm curious where you heard that. (purely curious, not saying you're wrong)
Really? I'm curious where you heard that. (purely curious, not saying you're wrong)
As other HN commenters point out, most research in this area doesn't translate to humans[0]. It might be nice if we suddenly found a miracle chemical that can add ten years to our lifespan (though we'd all be working ten years longer, not living it up in retirement), but like with every article around this subject, we'll just have to wait the coming five to six years to see if we can benefit from this ourselves.
Might be a good addition to food for pet mice though, so at least there's that.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27351316
Might be a good addition to food for pet mice though, so at least there's that.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27351316
Sarcasm...
Geroprotectors often transpose well into other species. E.g mexidol has a partially related mechanism of action and show health benefits in humans.
The idea that geroprotectors in mice do not transpose in human needs to be substantiated with rationale/evidence and scoped to specific classes of geroprotectors.
Would also like some source/info on this, seems suspicious, like something that anti-cruelty organizations came up with and people are mindlessly believing and repeating...
Science has produced incredible data on the treatment and care of rodents. Almost like they're manipulating us to do work for them.
Tangential: I think it should be "we investigate" instead of "we investigating" in the first paragraph of the abstract? How can such an awful mistaken use of grammar pass peer-review and other processes that precede publishing? Or am I the one who is mistaken?
EDIT: this is an "early view" of the paper, before it gets published. No idea about the implications of that.
EDIT: this is an "early view" of the paper, before it gets published. No idea about the implications of that.
Their English is better than my non-existant Chinese.
The Affiliations where:
The Affiliations where:
1. The Brain Science Center, Beijing Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
2. Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
3. Center on Translational Neuroscience, College of Life & Environmental Science, Minzu University of China, Beijing, China.
4. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Noncoding RNA Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
5. School of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Sure, but the publisher is Wiley (from USA), and the journal is the British Journal of Pharmacology. Seems like these entities should provide someone to proofread the paper before it gets publicized in any way?
In my experience, even prestigious journals such as Nature Communications or Genome Biology are not willing to spend resources on professional editing. Most of the effort is passed onto reviewers.
Only Nature, Science, Cell and a few high-end sister journals really put an effort proofreading, editing and adapting figures to the general look and feel of the journal.
Only Nature, Science, Cell and a few high-end sister journals really put an effort proofreading, editing and adapting figures to the general look and feel of the journal.
The people behind this seem to be working in Beijing, so there's a possibility English isn't the first language they're using. I don't want to make assumptions, just give the benefit of the doubt. This is science, not literature - there could still be value here. Or not. I just wouldn't discount it for a typo.
Unrelated cross post (can't comment on the story I only just read).. where is this magical food forest? Sounds delightful
Classic nerds, can't differentiate between substance and minutia.
You are not mistaken. I stopped reading at that point.
Edit: the status is listed as "Online ahead of print", so perhaps the error will get corrected prior to publication.
Edit: the status is listed as "Online ahead of print", so perhaps the error will get corrected prior to publication.
Give them a break - English is probably not their first language.
You won't survive 5 seconds in the new Asia dominated 21st century. /s
Both Fullerene C60 and SkQ1 can double lifespan in mice.
Everybody should take (at his own risk) SkQ1, it's gonna create a new generation of temporally old but physically young people.
SKQ1 being considered non toxic and properly eliminated by the body and given it's large (>150 studies) body of evidence showing revolutionar anti ageing (totally prevent Alzeihmer, Parkinson), to me the risk/benefit cost is a no brainer.
In addition to it, mexidol can be a nice augmentation. Of course it's only a part of the complete anti ageing solution, see also:
https://www.lifespan.io/road-maps/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/ http://geroprotectors.org
In addition to it, mexidol can be a nice augmentation. Of course it's only a part of the complete anti ageing solution, see also:
https://www.lifespan.io/road-maps/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/ http://geroprotectors.org
It seems we always hit a limit to lifespan studies. Unless we are able to modify the organs themselves, including the insulin response and mTOR, no single substance will ever prolong lifespan in a significant way.