What is your personal latest plan here @RapAdmin i recall you went quite high last summer or something?
Thanks! I was taking 6-12mg of natural astaxanthin previously for almost 10 years but now I just ordered this and will take their 24mg recommended dose that is allegedly 3x more bio available.
Yes - was up to 300mg or 400mg a day, and would like to do that again (or higher, towards 1 gram/day) on a longer term basis. For that first effort I was just using regular natural astaxanthin, but I’d like to find a more cost-effective product. When I find one, I’ll do a multi-month trial, with blood testing.
5 Likes
Good to know you didn’t suffer any adverse effects either. Must have swallowed almost a whole bottle in a day
If you are adventurous you can get your astaxanthin in the form of Paracoccus Bacteria fish food. 
This is apparently what they feed the farmed shrimp etc.
You can get ~ 900+/ 12 milligram doses for $38.
4 Likes
The other major carotenoids seem to increase cancer incidence in randomized human trials at the higher doses (but still in the teens mg’s range). If the mechanism really is that antioxidants increase the survival of initial cancer cells that would’ve otherwise succumbed to ROS (eg produced by the immune system or by exercise), then I’d be careful about mega-dosing astaxanthin. Simple antioxidants like vitamin E have also extended lifespan in healthy mice, but don’t seem to translate to humans, so the trade-off between oxidative damage vs. cancer may simply be different for mice.
3 Likes
Astaxanthin is not merely an antioxidant as it’s also a potent Nrf2 activator.
1 Like
But it still acts as an electron donor like the other carotenoids. Also, it seems like lutein also activates Nrf2 and lutein increased lung cancer in VITAL like the others. Nrf2 is itself just a transcription factor for activating endogenous antioxidant defenses and has been shown to be a useful tool for cancer cells. Theoretically, I’d be careful about constitutively activating it.
2 Likes
Wasn’t that beta-carotene and only in smokers?
1 Like
The relative risk was calculated for the entire population including non-smokers and smokers and smoking status didn’t seem to matter. It’d be very expensive to get significant signals in a quality prospective study without also including smokers.
Longer duration of use of individual b-carotene, retinol, and lutein supplements (but not total 10-year average dose) was associated with statistically significantly elevated risk of total lung cancer and histologic cell types; for example, hazard ratio ¼ 2.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.28, 3.17 for individual supplemental lutein with total lung cancer and hazard ratio ¼ 3.22, 95% confidence interval: 1.29, 8.07 for individual b-carotene with small-cell lung cancer for >4 years versus no use. There was little evidence for effect modification by gender or smoking status. Long-term use of individual b-carotene, retinol, and lutein supplements should not be recommended for lung cancer prevention, particularly among smokers.`
4 Likes
While I personally wouldn’t supplement Lutein either as a result of the study you shared, this study showed safety for six months
1 Like
From Vlasko at comment 15 above.
21.4 mg/kg × 70 kg = 1498 mg. Approximately 1.5 grams.
70 kg times 2.2 pounds per kilogram gives you 154 pounds.
Stated differently, 21.4 mg per kilogram equals 21.4 times 2.2, or 47.08mg per pound. So multiply 47.08 mg by your weight in pounds.
That’s useful to know - looking at their website though, it’s not clear if this is chemically synthesised or biologically sourced - or why AX3 is different/better than ‘Ordinary Astaxanthin’. Have you come across any details on production / production specification at all?
1 Like
Therefore, 521 cases and 76,605 non–lung cancer cases remained for analysis (n = 77,126 total).
Although there were only 2 lung cancer cases in the individual lutein supplement use category, the respective mean and median daily doses among users were 1.5 mcg (standard deviation, 0.7) and 1.0 mcg, and only 0.22% of participants had used the individual supplement for 6 years or longer, the results are strongly suggestive of elevated risk associated with lutein use. Given that lutein supplements have been used only in the past 15 years and only recently at high doses, this potential risk factor for lung cancer may be more important than suggested by the present study.
There was no appreciable effect modification by smoking versus nonsmoking status in our study, which is not surprising because there were few nonsmokers among our lung cancer cases: 30% and 62% were current or former smokers, respectively.
3 Likes
Looks like you got it reversed 
@Paperbill 21.4mg/kg x 0.454kg/ppound = 9.7156mg/pound.
70kg x 21.4 = 1498mg and 154.185 pound x 9.7156 = 1498mg
1 Like
Researchers recently performed a follow-up study of participants from the trial to determine the long-term outcomes of using beta carotene vs. lutein/zeaxanthin. They determined that while the former nearly doubled a patient’s risk of developing lung cancer, no such risk existed from taking lutein/zeaxanthin. In addition, they found that the nutrient also seemed to be superior in preventing or slowing late AMD progression.
The lutein/zeaxanthin formulation does not increase the risk of development of lung cancer in current or former smokers the way that beta-carotene does.
6 Likes
I stand corrected. Thanks. 2.2 pounds equals one kilogram.
To be clear, I’m not against lutein. I cycle a small amount myself. I just mean the fact that there is some cancer signal from lutein at low doses in humans is a concerning read-through to a 100x higher dose of astaxanthin (using the ITP study dose) for a carotenoid with higher antioxidant potential.
3 Likes
When it comes to carotenoids, Bryan Kennedy tested once beta carotene in mice - he said it decreased lifespan of male mice by 20% - but increased maximum lifespan of mice that survived - he tested only 1 dose - and he didn’t say how big dose was
So carotenoids can be quite dangerous (not in short term but in long-term)
2 Likes
This doesn’t seem to be worth taking seriously. VITAL was only an observational study, whereas the AREDS study cited by @DeStrider came out of an RCT and found no signal. And as JuanDaw noted, the numerical increase in risk in VITAL was driven by “only 2 lung cancer cases in the individual lutein supplement use category” in a population of 77,126 people and 521 incident lung cancer cases. That’s easily within the realm of chance.
Quoting the ITP paper:
Astaxanthin (Asta) was obtained from Cardax (Honolulu, HI) and fed at a target amount of 4000 ppm in the diet. The Asta supplied by Cardax consisted of synthetic Asta finely dispersed in a water dispersible beadlet formulation. The superior bioavailability of synthetic Asta beadlets compared to microalgal Asta was demonstrated in a human pharmacokinetic study (approximately threefold higher exposure in plasma over 24 h; [66] [ this appears to be the wrong citation: the correct citation seems to be [ [67]) ] and in a non-human primate pharmacokinetic study (approximately eightfold higher exposure in plasma over 96 h; [67]) [should actually be [68]]. Importantly, synthetic Asta is a pure form of Asta, whereas microalgal and other natural extracts of Asta are complex mixtures of Asta esters (mono-esterified and di-esterified with fatty acids), Asta, and other byproducts [68,69,70].
If the bioavailability claim is solid, then all the calculations people are doing to estimate human dosing are 3-8x too low if people are using the standard Haematococcus pluvialis-extracted material.
6 Likes