Re: Antioxidant hype, was Re: [DIYbio] Need a paper please

Antioxidants. Targeted at mitochondria. Slowing aging.    Really? I hope you've got a paper to back that claim up.  

https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/10/more-robust-data-on-the-effect-of-mitochondrially-targeted-antioxidants-on-fly-life-span.php

https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/12/the-latest-mitochondrially-targeted-antioxidant-research.php

If you want to debate whether life span extension equates to slowing aging, sure. That debate is being had over rapamycin, so equally valid to have it for plastiquinone derivatives.

But again this is all irrelevant to meaningful life extension in humans. Though plastinquinones or SS-31 or some other mitochondrially targeted antioxidant could wind up to be a better therapy for some specific conditions than presently exist, such as some forms of deterioration in the eye.

And I have yet to see a serious paper out of anyone showing that they understand aging any better than the "nuts and berries as medicine" crowd. The most recent I've seen suggested they slowed aging because they had reduced biomarkers of aging, not that they had a meaningful impact of actual lifespans.  

That is quite a claim. So no-one in the aging research community can do any better than the nuts and berries folk? I think that really just shows that you're not reading widely enough in the field. What exactly is wrong with the compound SENS explanation for aging, for example? Please do critique in detail, but note that the roots of this do not originate with the SENS crowd, as it is a synthesis of the consensus mechanistic explanations for degeneration culled from across the breadth of the medical research community. By which I mean people who are earnestly trying to find the causes of - and cure - diseases such as macular degeneration, heart failure, and atherosclerosis with modern medicine, not by feeding patients different types of food.

Or for that matter, what exactly is wrong with this detailed set of SENS-like proposals for the causes of aging and how to address them published by a completely different group of noted researchers?

https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/06/a-good-scientific-polemic-on-aging.php

Or for that matter once again, perhaps you could critique the new and detailed theories proposing aging as a genetic program that are emerging from the Russian research community and related scientific groups. I don't agree with them myself, but at least I've looked it over:

https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/07/biochemistry-moscows-issue-on-programmed-aging.php

I'm also averse to people hiding behind a pseudonym meant to convey how much smarter or more logical they are.  

https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/05/on-the-topic-of-my-name.php

Reason