Sodium rutin extends lifespan and health span in mice by 10%
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
It seems we always hit a limit to lifespan studies. Unless we are able to modify the organs themselves, including the insulin response and mTOR, no single substance will ever prolong lifespan in a significant way.
The difficult part is the neurons, you need to change them one by one, and restore all their connections, and internal parameters.
This is my theory on how you can “refresh” yourself while keeping you you.
> It has been widely found that the volume of the brain and/or its weight declines with age at a rate of around 5% per decade after age 401 with the actual rate of decline possibly increasing with age particularly over age 70.
I feel like that's probably a big one without getting into the functional changes.
And just adding a bunch of neurons would probably be like giving your computer a new HDD. I think that the argument is about how it's important to preserve the information contained within the old neurons somehow.
They didn't extend lifespan compared to baseline, but they restored baseline lifespan to sleep deprived subjects by feeding them various substances.
They tried a bunch of antioxidants, the most readily available one was melatonin, I think, but it's not clear to me what it all means.
If mice and fruit flies can live without sleep, would it work for humans? Do antioxidants help humans with sleep disorders?
All I know is that over the counter melatonin does not seem to work any miracles for me. I have no idea if it would make me capable of staying awake 24/7 if forced.
Lifespan is a separate issue, but you could look at eliminating sleep, if possible, as living 1/3 (or more) longer.
To make you fall asleep?
Do not take more than 450micro grams, over the counter contains waaay to much melatonin.
Melatonin is an antioxidant, but it is not a miracle hormone.
It just signals the absence of light. Owls and other nocturnal animals get wide awake in the presence of melatonin, humans and diurnal animals get sleepy.
Over the counter supplements usually seem to have way too large a dose, and I've read they can be very inconsistent too.
The point is, I read this amazing study, and it may be somehow incorrect or even fraudulent, but it is what it is. Sleep deprivation kills. The claim is that via, not one, but any of several substances, that can be reversed, at least in lab insects/animals.
I definitely am not advising anyone take any supplements. I want to clearly state that I don't experience any particular beneficial effects from anything I've tried.
I just am saying that uncovering the reason why sleep is needed has to have world changing applications, or end up as a spectacular debunking, it seems to me.
I would steer away from melatonin as a supplement for anything other than sleep, because it is a powerful hormone and while the science is lacking, it's better not to mess with such a powerful and important hormone.
What happens if I take more?
More might produce excessive grogginess after you wake up, and in my experience it leads to fast tolerance -- so it doesn't work; 300-450mcg works in perpetuity for me.
There's no single mention of diet in the abstracts and non-paywalled versions. Care to share a link or screenshot to support your claim?
If I am reading it correctly...
The other contender is Fullerene C60 which is bioavailable when diluted in oil (e.g olive oil) however it doesn't cross the blood brain barrier and hence won't stop your current neurodegeneration.
Historically people consumed much more salt, and don't give me the "people used to die when they were 35" nonsense. There is a big difference between being kicked by a horse vs dying of a stroke.
Folks you need to replace your sodium when you sweat!
/soapbox
Older women who have taken blood pressure medication for many years, e.g. 10 to 20 years, have risks of losing the ability to control well the concentrations of sodium and potassium in the blood.
If they follow a low-sodium diet, they have a high risk of hyponatremia (too little sodium in the body). Depending on the diet, hypokalemia (too little potassium in the body) is also possible.
If these conditions are not diagnosed promptly, severe illness or even death are the consequence.
Unfortunately, I was not aware of these risks. My mother belonged to this risk group, but nobody knew this and her periodic blood tests were perfect, because they included many other tests, except the sodium and potassium concentrations in blood, which are mandatory to detect this problem.
My mother had very serious problems because hyponatremia was detected too late, so I believe that more people should become aware of this risk.
There are a lot of old women taking medication for high blood pressure, so all should know that a periodic cheap test for sodium in blood can easily prevent reaching a stage when complete recovery becomes difficult or impossible.
Also, any low-sodium diet should actually measure or compute how much salt you eat, because too low sodium is even more dangerous than too high sodium.
Bacteria landing on salt will quickly find all of their water exiting their insides towards the salt. Life ceases to function sans water.
Nowadays I believe it's simply lightly coated in salt to only maximize flavor since we have fridges.
As far as I understand, the health risk associated with excess sodium intake is high blood pressure, i.e. more stress on your cardiovascular system.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/kidneys-salt-and-blood-pr...
Don't worry about sodium unless you've been diagnosed with a metabolic problem.
I do feel kind of bloaty when I eat wretched excesses of sodium all at once, usually ramen, but it passes.
Generally eat a high salt diet, add other minerals (mostly potassium) to drinking water, and take magnesium glycinate before bed. Minerals are easy to eliminate and if I'm not getting enough there's no alternative.
You're probably experiencing a sugar crash.
I suspect you don't experience the same after eating a bag of Doritos but they're absolutely loaded with MSG.. plus in all likelihood also sodium inosinate, sodium guanylate and who knows what else.
In fact, the fears around MSG seem to have some overlap with negative racial stereotypes:
Though to be fair it's a form of arms race, most US restaurants overdo it if the regional palette has become desensitized. It's not strictly a Chinese restaurant issue.
But many Chinese dishes on the menus are defined by their sweet and salty axis, and being in this environment they're pushed to the extreme.
Apparently lots of people disagree with something that seems obvious? Source?
Here's a source for you: https://www.nature.com/articles/jhh2008144
Strawman argument.
So stomach cancer is currently 10% of cancer deaths, and cancer is currently the second leading cause of death at all ages. One can't extrapolate that back historically safely because cancer primarily affects the old and people didn't live long enough back then. But even if we just single out stomach cancer and assume incorrectly that 100% is attributed to salt, when frankly that would be a minority of stomach cancers, then it still wouldn't even make the top ten causes of mortality today. Never mind historically when people commonly died from lots of things we no longer worry about, like simple bacterial infections, childbirth, or poor dental hygiene.
The OPs argument is ridiculous and I'm surprised how many people can't see that.
Everything old is new again.
People also had harsher lives and were exposed to a wide variety of stressors, diseases, malnutrition, etc.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/when-did-humans-star...
Unless it's a treatment for an acute condition that you suffer from, and there's some logical basis for trusting the effect will equally apply to humans, there's no point in basing personal dietary behavior in any way off of such studies. And a lesser point is that there is likely enough agreed upon research in this area that you are not adhering to already! (Myself included, though I do try)
Of course, the people who might work on such trials might frequent HN, and research is just intrinsically interesting, so I'm not saying "this is a bad post".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594046/
More than 95% of successful animal studies fail to progress further from human trials.
There's obviously a great need for doing these tests in a different fashion.
Incidentally, I recently learned about the Interventions Testing Program [1,2]. This is an ongoing very well conducted study investigating different drugs and supplements for longevity extension in mice. Aside from being highly rigorous, reproducible and free of conflicts, the results of this are fascinating. Particularly striking is the benefit of drugs which reduce peak glycemia after meals (acarbose and canagliflozin) in male mice.
[1] https://www.nia.nih.gov/research/dab/interventions-testing-p...
For less investigated diseases such as ALS or Parkinson it's about 700 trials without any success.
An excellent article discussing why mice studies are not applicable to humans, at least for ALS, is this one: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrneurol.2015.65
[0] http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/203577
Sorry not sure where it is located, but you could Google it.
You have locations like this: https://theconversation.com/of-mice-and-men-why-animal-trial...
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.
Not sure why that is higher, but it is phrased weird.
8% seems good to me, as that is the point of testing... but the point of the article was to avoid the hype of these early tests.
Doesn't make people eat that diet...
2. This is a study from China, including "School of Traditional Chinese Medicine"
Really? I'm curious where you heard that. (purely curious, not saying you're wrong)
Might be a good addition to food for pet mice though, so at least there's that.
EDIT: this is an "early view" of the paper, before it gets published. No idea about the implications of that.
The Affiliations where:
1. The Brain Science Center, Beijing Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
2. Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
3. Center on Translational Neuroscience, College of Life & Environmental Science, Minzu University of China, Beijing, China.
4. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Noncoding RNA Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Peking University, Beijing, China.
5. School of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Should we take this with a grain of sodium chloride instead?Only Nature, Science, Cell and a few high-end sister journals really put an effort proofreading, editing and adapting figures to the general look and feel of the journal.
Edit: the status is listed as "Online ahead of print", so perhaps the error will get corrected prior to publication.
In addition to it, mexidol can be a nice augmentation. Of course it's only a part of the complete anti ageing solution, see also:
https://www.lifespan.io/road-maps/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/ http://geroprotectors.org