ZanthoSyn seems to be synthetic astaxanthin according to this page at Cardax, specifically AstaSana™ which was used in the ITP study.
I take 18 mg natural astaxanthin per day, but if I manage to source ZanthoSyn or another synthethic verison in Europe at a reasonable price, I will likely switch.
Thank you for the information. However, I discovered that the synthetic astaxanthin sold by ZanthoSyn is even more expensive than the natural astaxanthin. I am unsure if we can obtain a cheaper price if we purchase directly from AstaSana™.
The calculation — ahem — the speculation gets even thornier for us women. On the one hand we can hope that there’s a positive translation of effect from rats / mice to humans, but that somehow unlike with the rodents, the life extension effect isn’t sex specific in humans. That’s a lot of hoping. So with the discount of unlikelihood of effect we should opt for the cheapest synthetic version if we’re to try it at all.
On the other hand, perhaps if it had been the natural sourced stuff, then the female rats / mice would have also felt the effect. Double or nothing! 
I am not sure the synthetic and natural versions can be reasonably assumed to act very similarly because of the charts I saw re: antioxidant capabilities. That’s NOT to say that I attribute the life extension effect of the compound to its antioxidant potential. But molecules with such different antioxidant potential (orders of magnitude different) probably behave differently in all sorts of other ways harder to quantify. It also probably means that it’s not wise to translate 1 to 1 the dosage from the rats / mice to humans because the 3-4g / day dosage in humans might come with other strings attached from too much antioxidant activity if we’re getting the natural source.
They really need trials with the natural sourced stuff compared to both placebo and the synthetic variant. Then we’ll have better notions of what’s what.
Beyond the life extension study in mice / rats, all the other papers that have been quoted re: neuroprotective effects, lipid profile improvement effects, etc. — can someone confirm which version of the stuff they’re based on?
Just to be clear: isn’t GlyNAC a promoter of glutathione which is a “natural” antioxidant? So even if exogenous antioxidants such as vitamin c may potentially decrease longevity , glutathione appears to extend longevity so there must be something else going on — does this make sense?
I just started taking asta at 8mg per day. Mostly for sun protection while hiking but thought there might be other potential benefits. I have six months worth so unless there are negative impacts I’ll likely take that at least.
Astaxanthin was shown by the ITP to extend the lifespan of male mice. That’s why most of us take it. It is also a NRF2 modulator.
NRF2 is like the command center that deploys antioxidants. Based on my understanding, this is the analogy. Imagine antioxidants are like bombs. NRF2 is the command center telling the bombers where to drop the bombs. The faster NRF2 issues commands, the faster antioxidants are deployed. Too many antioxidants and too little NRF2 activation is suboptimal and vice versa. So Astaxanthin and Glutathione should be synergistic.
The nuclear factor erythroid 2–related factor 2 (Nrf2) is an emerging regulator of cellular resistance to oxidants . Nrf2 controls the basal and induced expression of an array of antioxidant response element–dependent genes to regulate the physiological and pathophysiological outcomes of oxidant exposure.
Nrf2 is a cellular sensor of electrophilic stress that coordinates the expression of a battery of defensive genes encoding antioxidant proteins and detoxifying enzymes.
Glynac Raises Glutathione, and it is promising lifespan extension compound.
So far it seems that the error is intaking antioxidants that causes the body to downregulate its inner antioxidants. Compounds that cause the body to increase its own even more potent antioxidants have had positive effects.
The exceptions to the rate of living, or free radical theories, were explained by the membrane pacemaker theory. This explains exceptions such as humans and high metabolism birds that seem to have high lifespan despite high metabolism. It is oxidative damage to membranes that generate catalytic exponentially increasing radicals, and are the most critical point for radical generation, the reactive compounds generated in membrane damage can cross both lipid and water barriers damaging all components including nuclear dna.
The longer lived an organism the more resistant its membranes are to oxidation. This is even more extreme in the ageless organisms that live for multiple centuries, some of these have exponentially more resistant to oxidation membranes.
Astaxanthin embeds in the membrane and protects from damage the most critical element in the cell. Natural Astaxanthin is a perfectly linear molecule that crosses the membrane from side to side, and becomes perfectly embedded in it. Unlike natural astaxanthin most synthetic comes with an angled shape and doesn’t properly fit into the membrane. The odd angled shape might also affect its ability to stimulate antiaging pathways, given shape is key in biology for interactions between molecules.
Can you cite a source for this?
The best data we have is from the synthetic astaxanthin that the National Institutes on Aging’s ITP program has given us, with a lifespan improvement of about 12% for males (mice). I’ve not seen anything as good as this from any “natural” astaxanthin. Obviously the synthetic astaxanthin (AstaSana) is doing something very positive in these trials.
It appears I was mistaken about structure there is variety in both natural and synthetic. But from my understanding there is more uniformity in the biological version. IIRC, when producing molecules with different chirality, nature can create most of its output in a particular structure due to the use of enzymes that produce consistent structure, while chemical means of synthesis tend to produce 50-50 output for each possible location of structural variability.
I’d assume nature given its ability to effectively produce select structures optimally, would choose the best form for production. Though I could be wrong.
For instance, the astaxanthin produced by H. pluvialis is naturally present at 73% as trans-astaxanthin and 27% as cis-astaxanthin
Below it says that synthetic is racemic mix of two enantiomers, and meso structures.
Checked on chatgpt to confirm
Chiral molecules are a fundamental concept in chemistry, especially organic chemistry, and they have significant implications in biological systems and pharmaceuticals. A chiral molecule is one that cannot be superimposed on its mirror image; the two forms are called enantiomers. Here’s how chiral molecules are relevant in the context of enzyme output versus chemical synthesis:
- Enzymatic Reactions:
- Enzymes are highly specific biological catalysts that typically produce a single enantiomer when they catalyze reactions involving chiral molecules.
- This specificity arises because enzymes have active sites with a particular three-dimensional shape that only fits one enantiomer (the substrate).
- Enzymatic reactions are generally considered to be more environmentally friendly and efficient as they often occur under mild conditions and can be highly selective.
- Chemical Synthesis:
- Traditional chemical synthesis can produce chiral molecules but often results in a racemic mixture—a 50/50 mix of both enantiomers.
- Specialized chemical synthesis techniques, such as asymmetric synthesis, are required to produce a single enantiomer. These methods can involve the use of chiral catalysts, chiral auxiliaries, or starting materials that are already enantiomerically pure.
- Chemical synthesis can sometimes be less selective and might require harsher conditions or more steps to achieve the desired enantiomeric purity.
The difference between the two methods is particularly important in pharmaceuticals, as the different enantiomers of a chiral drug may have different biological activities. One enantiomer might be therapeutic, while the other could be ineffective or even harmful. Consequently, the ability to produce a single enantiomer—which enzymes can do inherently and chemists strive to achieve through asymmetric synthesis—is crucial.
@RapAdmin in looking at the AstaSana PDF document shown below, I see that there is only 5% astaxanthin present….so when you quote for humans, the 3.5g per day of astaxanthin needed to match the ITP study, is the 5% figure taken into account ?
https://www.rapamycin.news/uploads/short-url/9jtKM6ZUxqZRnCHYggvpAP32XXn.pdf
If not, then you only 175mgs per day in man to match the ITP study.
This seems incorrect to me. There is synthetic astraxanthin available for research purposes, but this is generally not what is found in supplements (from what I’ve been able to determine) likely because it is expensive. The astraxanthin in supplements appears to be ground algae suspended in some oil, in the amounts so the mg of astraxanthin meets the desired capsule amount. So the astraxanthin that the vast number of us are taking is “natural” (from algae).
I’ve written about this previously: do we really want to be taking all the other stuff in the algae that comes with the astraxanthin? — I’m really ignorant about what these other compounds are.
Maybe taking the synthetic astraxanthin allows participants to not be exposed to all the other stuff that comes in the algae?
That’s entirely possible, unfortunately given the state of the science right now we really don’t know. All we know is that the synthetic astaxanthin from Astasana increased the lifespan of male mice significantly.
Hope you don’t mind my flagging up the possibility of a discrepancy in projected human doses. Like you say we’ll just have to wait for full details of the study to be published.
Like what stuff? Microplastics?
Please check our calculations. Here is how we calculated the human dose of astaxanthin from the ITP study with 4000ppm in mice:
Here: Astaxanthin: A Potential Treatment in Disease and Aging, Lifespan Increase - #9 by RapAdmin
Using the meclizine calculation.
4000ppm / 800ppm
X / 728mg (70kg person)5 * 728mg = 3.64g/day for a 70kg person ?
Here: Astaxanthin: A Potential Treatment in Disease and Aging, Lifespan Increase - #12 by gpaiao
Yes you’re calculation is right, please disregard what I said. It was late at night and I was tired.
It just threw me when I saw the 5% purity, I assumed AstaSana was 100% pure astaxanthin and that the diet formulation was done on site at the animal facility. We used to mix our own diets.
Possible. I hadn’t even considered micro plastics. I had naively assumed that algae would be grown in farming ponds and didn’t think about real-world environmental toxins. I was more considering that algae has been promoted as a bulk food source (for some nutrients — I’m picturing the blue oatmeal from The Matrix) and I can’t remember it being tested for longevity.
I was more concerned with two possibilities (neither with a paper as background):
when I have glycine or taurine/etc by itself, I have a “flush” or some kind of reaction. But when I eat a steak (with glycine in it) I don’t feel anything. There seems to be a “signalling” aspect to many of these “supplements” which have a specific impact (or you just ram a specific pathway’s constituents until you get when you want). I’d consider algae more like the steak, and less like an isolated dose of synthetic astraxanthin.
what’s in the algae? How do they make it? Is it a clean environment? Are there heavy metals? Toxic molds? Lead painted pool sides? Do they use clean water? Pesticides? Enhancers? Are the algae unhealthy and have the output of an unhealthy organism? Etc.
Sorry:addition: there seems to be an impact of pure astraxanthin which I haven’t seen in the algae derived astraxanthin. Maybe it is the same and hasn’t been tested. I’m taking 12mg per day from algae derived astraxanthin. I’ll of course let you know if I like 15% longer, but this has been in the back of my mind.
The comparison that comes to mind is: if Rapamycin wasn’t isolated and produced (or rapalogs) would it work as well to eat a pound of Easter island dirt every two weeks to get your 10mg or Rapamycin? (Kidding of course)
I’ve just switched to a new Astaxanthin. It’s less expensive for 20% more compared to NOW.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0B9HNPB88?ref=ppx_pt2_mob_b_prod_image
Antioxidant, shmantioxidant.
“The mean life span for the mice given supplementary calcium pantothenate was 653.1 days and that for the control mice was 549.8 days.” In other words, all the mice in this study were absurdly short-lived, whether they got Ca pantothenate or not. This kind of result means nothing for normally-aging mice or people.