From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.life-extension,sci.med.nutrition,sci.med
Subject: Re: "Anti-Aging" Debates in "SCIENCE" have really started !
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:34:16 -0700
Message-ID: <agfkum$48r$1@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>

GeoWCherry wrote in message <20020709115951.10841.00006779@mb-fp.aol.com>...

>C'mon, Steve, don't tell us what doesn't
>work, tell us three things that DO work!
>You're a smart scientist and many of us
>(I sure am) are bioinformatic laymen. Tell
>me three more things that do work. I'll
>start with one: statin drugs (not taken at
>the same time as antioxidants). Now tell
>us three more things that work. My life
>hangs in the balance. Post up!

COMMENT:

You got the "drug" for which there's best evidence for life extension (not
the same as anti-aging). The evidence for statins as a life extension pill
is best of all. After that, I would probably put selenium (200 mcg a day) as
the stuff which is mostly likely to help you.  Then vitamin E, though
evidence there in human trials is mixed, with the largest trial I know of
showing nada with 20,000 people over 5 years.  Possibly aspirin in tiny
doses (40 mg = half a baby aspirin a day) for people over 35 who have ANY
cardiovascular risk factors. And probably aspirin is a good idea for anybody
over 65, though I can't prove this. But I would suggest that even mini-dose
aspirin-takers do frequent stool guaiac tests to make sure they're not
bleeding from the GI tract-- and possibly take Zantac also. CoQ10
supplementation is a good idea if you take a statin. The data for Q10 alone
is mixed, and I tend to be biased because my own experience using it in mice
was very positive. Others haven't been able to generally repeat it, though!
There's some evidence that you'll be sick with infections less often if you
take a good multivitamin, and it's probably good to take folate to keep your
homocysteine levels down (why not?  It's cheap).

After that, you're basically down to trying to increase your intake of the
good foods: cold water fish, nuts (except peanuts), and fruits and
vegetables (emphasis on the colored ones). Perhaps a little red wine
nightly, unless you have alcoholism risks or social problems with that. The
epidemiological impact of these foods is vastly greater than than that of
any supplements. Those are the best positives. Epidemiologically the stuff
to stay away from is saturated fat (dairy and most commercial meats), and
all trans fats (diary again, plus anything hydrogenated).  Fatwise, besides
fish and nuts, you can eat olives and avocados and a little dark chocolate,
if you like them. And finally, don't get obese no matter what you eat.  As
somebody whose BMI right now is 27 and fighting, I can sympathize. But don't
give up. And exercise, even if it's only half an hour a day of brisk
walking; diets for weight loss don't work unless you do.

And hell yes, I take a statin (pravachol), CoQ10, and aspirin and eat all
the fish, nuts, fruit and veggies I can stand. And take my vitamins with V-8
juice at dinner, and have red wine as nightcap. And my dairy fat and trans
fat intake is near zero. But I'd be lying if I said I thought I had any
great answers to life extension that hardly anybody else knows about.

SBH

--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book.  A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.

From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.life-extension,sci.med.nutrition,sci.med
Subject: Re: "Anti-Aging" Debates in "SCIENCE" have really started !
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 17:13:21 -0700
Message-ID: <agfu90$pvf$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>

Chris Malcolm wrote in message ...
>"Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> writes:
>
>>You got the "drug" for which there's best evidence for life extension (not
>>the same as anti-aging). The evidence for statins as a life extension pill
>>is best of all. After that, I would probably put selenium (200 mcg a day) as
>>the stuff which is mostly likely to help you.  Then vitamin E, though
>>evidence there in human trials is mixed, with the largest trial I know of
>>showing nada with 20,000 people over 5 years.  Possibly aspirin in tiny
>>doses (40 mg = half a baby aspirin a day) for people over 35 who have ANY
>>cardiovascular risk factors. And probably aspirin is a good idea for anybody
>>over 65, though I can't prove this.
>
>You're not worried about the possibly accelerated aging of joints due
>to the aspirin?


Certainly not at minimal antiplatelet doses. At those doses the aspirin
never even makes it past the liver to the systemic circulation (and thus not
to the joints). Acylation of platelet COX-1 happens while the platelets are
in transit of  the portal circulation-- ie, in blood going from gut to
liver. Stomach bleeding effects, if any, will presumably be due *only* to
the lowered platelet function. The standard effects of NSAIDs on COX-1 and
stomach prostaglandins won't be seen, because the dose is simply too low and
stomach COX-1 turnover is too fast in nucleated and dividing cells.

--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book.  A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.

From: "Steve Harris" <sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com>
Newsgroups: sci.life-extension,sci.med.nutrition,sci.med
Subject: Re: "Anti-Aging" Debates in "SCIENCE" have really started !
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 18:49:20 -0700
Message-ID: <agg3t3$v0e$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>

Zar wrote in message <9g3niuct8auh6cpuef8l86rbqpmrv41ufh@4ax.com>...
>On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:34:16 -0700, "Steve Harris"
><sbharris@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>
>>  Possibly aspirin in tiny
>>doses (40 mg = half a baby aspirin a day) for people over 35 who have
>>ANY cardiovascular risk factors. And probably aspirin is a good idea for
>>anybody over 65, though I can't prove this. But I would suggest that
>>even mini-dose aspirin-takers do frequent stool guaiac tests to make
>>sure they're not bleeding from the GI tract-- and possibly take Zantac
>>also.
>
>Is it correct that Zantac will neutralize the acidity of the aspirin?
>If so, how do you know that the aspirin will still be effective?
>If we wanted to avoid taking the acetyl-salicylic acid, we could
>neutralize it *before* we take it. But then it wouldn't be effective.
>So why would we want to neutralize it *after* we take it?


The chemical acidity of aspirin isn't important, and it contributes nothing
to either its effect or its side-effects. For this reason buffered aspirin
isn't any more effective or safe-- even at high doses. It's a non-issue.
For really low doses (such as we're talking about) it's a non-issue squared.

Zantac stops the stomach's acid from being produced-- this lessens stress on
the stomach, and helps small ulcers heal (whereas otherwise, with aspirin,
they may bleed).


--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book.  A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.