Hacker News Reader

Comment by clumsysmurf | Hacker News Reader

The full list is not in the article, and the paper is behind a paywall, but most of the 'vitamins' seem to be listed in the supplemental materials which are still free:

http://www.pnas.org/highwire/filestream/831622/field_highwir...

Some things I thought would be there are missing, like carnosine.

View on HN

In case anyone else is also going through the article for the list:

Vitamin K, Selenium, Vitamin D, Taurine, Ergothioneine, Pyrroloquinoline quinone, Queuine, Carotenoids, Lutein and Zeaxanthin, Lycopene, alpha and beta-Carotene, Astaxanthin

And some natural sources: https://twitter.com/foundmyfitness/status/105298166965596569...

Does the paper also talk about proper dosages if one wants to supplement with these vitamins? I know it says 4000 UI for vitamin D but don't see any mention for dosages of vitamin K.

10 IU D3 : 2 mcg+ MK-4. Vitamin K2 MK-4 becomes active at 1.5 milligrams, with some taking 5-9 mg daily: https://examine.com/supplements/vitamin-k/.

AOR Ortho-Core has many of these and is especially great when combined with Life Extension D + K and Doctor's Best High Absorption Magnesium.

So does the vegetable section of the grocery store fwiw.

Getting as much as possible from real food tends to be preferred.

I have only one question: How did they validated this? For grand claims like this you need to run controlled experiment for many years. The reason I say this is because typically these studies are funded by commercial interests with the goal to cite these studies in their marketing material.

It’s nutrition. You almost can’t run long term randomised experiments patient compliance is so low. Take it as interesting at best like the rest of the field that told us salt was bad for us, that dietary cholesterol effected serum cholesterol and trans fats were healthier than polyunsaturated (margarine vs butter).

Also how do you control for diversity of bacteria in our guts and variation of metabolism on an individual basis?

It's more of a hypothesis paper by a retired scientist. Bruce Ames, the author used to do experiments on vitamin and mineral deficiencies in animals 20+ years ago. What he found was things like increased DNA strand breaks. Nothing positive was found in terms of longevity or healthspan when supplementing excess anti-oxidants. It's possible to search Ames B[author] on pubmed to see his old publications.

  "Maybe some these things would extend healthspan if people have a less than optimal diet."

...or that maybe some novel and expensive things might have small health impacts. Not that they do otherwise, or that there is rigorous experiments demonstrating so.

I think some people are eagerly clamoring to supplement based on this list, which is just fueling the 30bn dollar a year supplement industry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/style/wellness-industrial...

Why not fund basic research into age related disease instead?

i.e. [ https://www.lifespan.io/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/, http://dogagingproject.com, http://sens.org ]

Bruce Ames is a renowned scientist, but he also has an anti-aging nutritional supplement company on the side named Juvenon.

DNA damage and declining DHEA levels are said to be excessive due to chronic magnesium insufficiency/deficiency. Also, as the body releases magnesium when ready to unroll inflammation, deficiency can result in impaired clearance.

Even acne is often prevented by sufficient vitamin D + magnesium.

Be careful, especially with dosage; meta studies[1] have linked increased consumption of vitamins to a shorter life.

[1]https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/vitamins-and-cancer-risk/

Increased consumption of vitamin pills.

Consuming more plants, and more of specific plants, is the appropriate way to increase the presence of these micronutrients in one's diet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com