Which supplements do you think are still worth taking?

Supplements
#183

It’s been discussed in some places here in the forum/fora, so might be valuable to do a search here on rap news.

I just did a quick google search and found below paper that is recent and in a top journal, it’s likely that if you look at its references that it cites a lot of the other key papers. (I just looked quickly and included some below)

Calico (the $3 billion longevity biotech backed by Alphabet and in partnership with Abbie) have looked at it quite a bit I think and have published on it.

You can probably also find key data if you look at podcasts etc with Professor Valter Longo or get his book/audiobook.

Dietary protein restriction is increasingly recognized as a unique approach to improve metabolic health, and there is increasing interest in the mechanisms underlying this beneficial effect.

Here we demonstrate that protein restriction increases lifespan, reduces frailty, lowers body weight and adiposity, improves physical performance, improves glucose tolerance, and alters various metabolic markers within the serum, liver, and adipose tissue of wildtype male mice.

Epidemiological data suggest that lowering dietary protein content supports metabolic improvements and resilience3,4,5,6,7, while high protein intake correlates with increased mortality8,9. Protein restriction (PR) is a form of dietary restriction in the absence of energy restriction that extends lifespan and improves general health measures in various organisms, including rodents, fruit flies, and yeast10,11,12,13,14,15. The restriction of protein but not the restriction of fat or carbohydrate increases lifespan in fruit flies16,17. In rodents, PR also extends lifespan18,19,20,21, with evidence suggesting that lowering protein consumption exerts favorable outcomes on health that are independent of energy intake18. As an alternative to total PR, the restriction of select amino acids22, including methionine restriction23,24, threonine and/or tryptophan restriction25,26,27, and branched-chain amino acid (BCAA) restriction28,29,30,31, also extend lifespan in various organisms.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29499-8

1 Like
#184

How about neither burning out nor fading away? I plan to be one of those active centenarians who still go for brisk walks with my wife. Once you hit 110, that’s when the challenge begins. :wink:

6 Likes
#185

Clearly in all you have written there is Not even one reference to Lysine. From what I can tell all that information is no relevant to my question about benefits of taking Lysine and Vit C. I’m clearly not an expert on longevity but I do observe very carefully for effects (positive and negative) of supplements I take, and I’m pretty sure that at least for Vit C combined with Lysine is on top of the list of supplements for overall well-being, but can’t say anything about their effect on longevity since I’m not 110 yet lol.

Apparently what works for one may not work for everyone.

#186

I did not say that I knew the answer for L-lysine… the opposite - I only raised a question (one that I would research a lot if I were to take a supplement on a daily basis)

Then you quoted this specific part of my post and asked if it I had references for it

I know some essential amino acid restriction is inline with longevity and recapitulates much of calorie restriction benefits without restricting total calories.

And I took time to answer that.

As I’m not (currently at least) interested in takin L-lysine so that for I haven’t researched it.

1 Like
#187

Possibly among certain mice strains.

Protein restriction “reduces frailty”. BS, pure and simple, when it comes to elderly humans who are not mice.
I am not even going to cite any articles refuting this ridiculous conclusion.
Most elderly people do not get enough protein. That is why there are countless protein supplement drinks for the elderly. If you are old and want to increase your frailty and sarcopenia, reduce your protein intake.

7 Likes
#188

@desertshores You should not quote two words from the paper and make it seem as if I’m personally was saying that as your post makes it seem.

Below is my synthesis - making it seem like I was saying something else is not constructive or accurate

2 Likes
#189

Might have misspoken earlier but your reply and contribution (as well as anyone’s) is greatly appreciated. and thank you for taking the time to answer and research it.
All I was trying to convey was that based on my own experience combination of L-Lysine with Vit C has been very beneficial for my overall health (my n=1 observation good for heart health, bone and muscles), but it doesn’t mean that it may help the same way everyone.

#190

Sorry, didn’t mean to offend you. I was criticizing the paper.

2 Likes
#191

Why I am very skeptical of mouse studies and medical studies in general. We should be very skeptical about our own supplement stacks.

In hopes of extending our lives and healthspan, we tend to look at favorable studies through rose-colored glasses. I am occasionally guilty of this myself. When we look at studies featuring supplements, we must be very very skeptical. There are just too many commercial and other special interests involved.

Boosting NAD+ levels for instance might have some consequences we don’t know about especially because of the special commercial and scientific interests involved.
“Cancer Research Points to Key Unknowns about Popular “Antiaging” Supplements” (1)

A good read into why studies show positive results in mice and even in some primates don’t work or are even toxic to humans and why I am very skeptical about medical studies and mouse studies in particular:

“However, the average rate of successful translation from animal models to clinical cancer trials is less than 8%. Animal models are limited in their ability to mimic the extremely complex process of human carcinogenesis, physiology and progression. Therefore the safety and efficacy identified in animal studies is generally not translated to human trials.”

“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.”

"The trials were all published in prestigious neurosurgery journals and had multiple co-authors. None of the co-authors had contributed patients to the trials, and some didn’t know that they were co-authors until after the trials were published. When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust the data.” Why, Roberts wondered, did he publish the trial? None of the trials have been retracted."

“at least one-quarter of clinical trials might be problematic or even entirely made up”

(1) Cancer Research Points to Key Unknowns about Popular "Antiaging" Supplements - Scientific American

Of mice and men: why animal trial results don’t always translate to humans.
Lost in translation: animal models and clinical trials in cancer treatment - PMC

Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise? - The BMJ.

Audio long read: Medicine is plagued by untrustworthy clinical trials. How many studies are faked or flawed?.

7 Likes
#192

Well said. For some reason I am convinced that a Normal human life is somewhere between 110-130 years old. To reach those years it seems that there is got to be a bit more to it than eat your veggies and exercise :). Clearly, for me the supplements I take are merely a vehicle to help me get there. I have not been convinced (by anything I’ve seen or listened to) that there is a way to extend life past say 130. However (as stated earlier) I think there is ways to prolong life to the outer limits of the natural lifespan (about 120) which would basically mean being able to drive, go shopping and do garden chores at 100. I am perfectly happy with that, but IMO without the help of supplements it would be nearly impossible!

4 Likes
#193

“at least one-quarter of clinical trials might be problematic or even entirely made up”

It makes me wonder how many “negative” trials are also made up. For example, team 1 publishes genuine positive findings on the effects of SubstanceX for a condition. And then team 2 does their own study, lies, and says it didn’t work.

I saw some of these types of allegations during the pandemic. Indian researchers in medical journals alleging western political fraud for saying certain drugs weren’t effective in Covid patients when Indian data showed it was effective.

1 Like
#194

According to the literature I cited, the medical literature you read, even a prestigious journal like Nature, has a one in three chance of being bogus. Of course, it could be both ways.
The main thing that rings alarm bells for me, whether or not the results are positive or negative, is who benefits from the results. I think it has been pointed out on other threads, that sometimes the authors lie about their affiliations with a product being tested.

2 Likes
#195

Very good. I AM very skeptical about my supplement stack. In fact I am well on my way to shrinking it big time. I am focused (and getting better) on the basics: food (timing, macro cycling, gut health, weight mgmt), exercise, outdoor fun, sleep, stress mgmt, etc. and I am limiting my pharmaceuticals and supplements to 10 items that I take cyclically (only certain days of the week). I take no supplements or sleep aids at night (I will take melatonin if I wake up at 2am). So, if I miss out on 0.001% of healthspan enhancement, so be it. At least I will not be susceptible to the slippery slope of wishful thinking, and I am forced to actually use non-drug means to optimize my health.

6 Likes
#196

Thanks a lot SNK - just trying to be helpful by asking a question and then later trying to answer the question is saw.

All in this together!

1 Like
#197

Thanks Charles. I was a bit overly sensitive there - just felt it important that my perspective be captured accurately (especially as it in core ways was aligned with your perspective).

Truly like how much and in valuable ways you contribute to this forum overall :pray:

4 Likes
#198

me too!
SUPPLEMTS are the brother of the five BIGS!
DESSS (DIET, EXERCISE, SOCIAL, SLEEP, SUPPLEMNTS)

1 Like
#199

@Ericross2, I just read a few papers on PubMed, and their conclusion seems to be that creatine doesn’t affect renal clearance in the young and healthy. I’m old and I have CKD, so I wouldn’t want to try my luck with something I don’t need.

#200

Thank you, @tim. I’ve actually been taking it for the past two months and I’m fine — seems not to impact renal clearance as my n=1, just as your PubMed literature review suggested.

I’m not sure what kind of impact it has on my brain function (supposed to be positive, but perhaps I’m not smart enough to notice) and other healthspan/lifespan benefits (discussed ad libitum in other areas of this forum). But I can tell you for a young guy at 53 (young for this forum, but old in the gym) I can go slightly harder in the gym with it — not enough to replace anabolic steroids (which I have zero interest) and not enough to overcome laziness, but noticeable if I’m willing to go all-out, I can go harder for longer. Sorry I don’t have a control arm to my n=1 but I wanted them to be roughly the same size.

2 Likes
#201

Yes, @desertshores, the extent of cheating in all of the journals, from medicine to sociology, is both disheartening and disgusting. So much so that I am thinking of jumping off this merry-go-round. I think I’ll dump the rapa but stay with the testosterone. At least I know that one of them works.

1 Like
#202

How do you know that?

1 Like