Re: Antioxidant hype, now anti-aging, was Re: [DIYbio] Need a paper please

 

Matt, please give your scientific opinion. 

OK, got your point on the antioxidants. 

OK, got your point on the frauds.  There is always a hype machine behind any funding effort, which needs to be guarded against.  Multivitamins debunked as well.  Journalists rarely help in regard to debunking as about half of a good journalist's article is factually erroneous.  DIYbio does help in this regard, to spread more accurate information.

What in your opinion are the areas of excitement right now as in your quote above? 

Where is the "nuts and berries as medicine" position best described, by whom, what group is spearheading this area of research.   Is it Willcox & Willcox?   Does this imply you believe diet strongly modifies gene expression (I don't want to assume what your position is, so I'm asking), and if so by what mechanism?

Do you practice an optimal diet as you've described as above or are you looking at it theoretically.   For example, are you vegetarian or vegan?  Do you drink a lot of black or green tea?  Have you considered taking Theaflavin capsules or others?


SENS, I believe, ignores diet because they assume it is not a significant enough mechanism and they are more interested in looking for big silver bullets.  The SENS crowd also likes to drink alcohol (beer & wine) - which is interesting.


Quote "It is also not clear that MitoSENS has any proof of its claims, either."  - It is clear:   SENS has no proof of it's claims on MitoSENS as of yet.  It is still Hypothetical.


Quote "Show me papers, not links I have to filter through. "    I agree with that.  Discuss specific, individual papers and their conclusions.  It is less worthwhile to point to blog entries or file directories of 100 pdf's.   Pasting DOI's is fine.
 

Reason suggested: "the new and detailed theories proposing aging as a genetic program that are emerging from the Russian research community and related scientific groups"   DOI 10.1134/S0006297912070012.   Yet that is basically suggesting that there is a kill switch and a biological clock in humans.  Does that even pass the test of Occam's razor, compared to the hypothesis of cumulative-damage-induced aging?   And it suggests SkQ1 (plastoquinonyl decyltriphenylphosphonium) in a 0.25 µM solution will (will, not may) slow the switch.   



## Jonathan Cline
## jcline@ieee.org
## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223
########################