Anti-ageing molecule boosts fertility in ageing mice
nature.com
nature.com
Which might be fine if the metabolite is actually the responsible molecule.
I have no idea what the concentration of seminal plasma is in semen, but even if the latter was pure plasma that's still 135 sessions to equal one pill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytic_acid?wprov=sfla1
[edit] remove doubled word
A little on the nose.
Its also good for autophagy and there has been no known side effects. Its just a plant product anyway!
So is heroin/opium...
> Getting the dose right is important, as the study also showed that excessive amounts of spermidine led to poorer quality oocytes in mice.
[1]: https://www.lifespanpodcast.com/nmn-nr-resveratrol-metformin...
https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/Q9NWM0/entry
IMO, a better way is to trigger your own body to make spermidine by getting enough Arginine and taking Manganese, B6, and keeping your methylation cycle flowing.
The pathway is as follows:
Arginine -> (Arginase, uses manganese as a cofactor) -> Ornithine -> (Ornithine decarboxylase, uses B6 as a cofactor) -> putrescine -> (Spermidine synthase which needs SAMe and Pyruvate) -> Spermidine
https://www.mdpi.com/metabolites/metabolites-12-00344/articl...
Roy: A Life Well Lived is a Virtual Reality Life Simulator
In the game, scientists are working to extend life. This translates to hacking the videogame's code.
Success. The player of the game is locked in permanent catatonic fugue. Stays in game forever. Immortality achieved.
1. Spermidine found to increase lifespan and fertility in mice.
2. Spermidine levels not found to increase in blood or certain tissues when fed to mice.
3. Therefore, 1 is wrong.
Finding 2 in no way disproves 1. Facts which could be consistent with both 1 and 2 being true:
- spermidine metabolites are responsible for benefits
- while spermidine levels are maintained, excess spermidine is used beneficially
- experimenters in 2 simply haven't looked in the right tissues
And so on. TFA says there were observed phenotypic improvements (follicular health, oocyte number and quality), which categorically trump 2's failure to observe increase in spermidine levels. And none of this says anything directly about spermidine's effects in humans
At the end of the day, “the critic” is a valuable job. Someone has to do it. Not sure it is really helping progress the industry though. I think it would be better for him to leave this to the lawyers tho.
This is another indicator that that is not quite the right way to think about cancer.