Jump to content

Glutathione Restoration Improves Hallmarks Of Aging in Older Adults


Recommended Posts

Interesting. Thanks!

I am a little leery of supplementing with NAC, see the article below, and wonder if there is long-term research that confirms its safety and actual long-term benefits:

One Type Of Antioxidant May Not Be As Safe As Once Thought

"According to new research at the University of Virginia Health System, N-acetylcysteine (NAC), an anti-oxidant commonly used in nutritional and body-building supplements, can form a red blood cell-derived molecule that makes blood vessels think they are not getting enough oxygen"

I also thought that the CRP numbers cited were kind of high even for the young group, and really high for the older one. Maybe my conversion is wonky. I am comparing it to my HS-CRP, which is 0.02 mg/L. But is this "young" group made up of healthy subjects?

Finally, the video prompted me to recheck my insulin sensitivity, using this calculator. I was actually experimenting with Berberin to see if my glucose will drop a bit, since it had gone from 85 mg/dL to 91 mg/dL between 2019 and 2020. In the same period, my insulin went from 2.5 uIU/mL to 4.2 uIU/mL. But I was pleasantly surprised that my insulin resistance is still OK, at least if the HOMA-IR indication is valid, even though it had gone from 0.5 to 0.9. But I am wondering why the HOMA-IR value for the young group is so high, as at 1.7 it would indicate poor insulin resistance, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Ron. There's also this study, "The antioxidant N-acetylcysteine protects from lung emphysema but induces lung adenocarcinoma in mice":

https://insight.jci.org/articles/view/127647

 

Yes, the young group had relatively high hs-CRP. ng/ml = mg/L, and the young group's 2.4 is definitely high for a young group. Also, the young group may not have been as metabolically healthy as possible, based on their HOMA-IR values, as you mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sibiriak said:

It' seems plausible that N-acetylcysteine (NAC) intake, similar to L-cysteine, may lessen or reverse any benefits of methionine moderation.

Michael Rae's argument is methionine moderation as part of a whole foods diet which will also contain cysteine does not increase longevity.  Additional NAC shouldn't harm a non-existent benefit of methionine moderation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Todd Allen said:

Michael Rae's argument is methionine moderation as part of a whole foods diet which will also contain cysteine does not increase longevity.  Additional NAC shouldn't harm a non-existent benefit of methionine moderation.

This issue is not just longevity,  but health in general.   Michael Rae (linked above): 
 

Quote

Moderating Met is Still Good for You

That said, there certainly is some evidence that "moderate MetR" is healthy  — altho' this may simply amount to saying that plant-based sources of protein is good for you, potentially for reasons not related to Met.

IF you want to moderate MET intake,  you may not want to be taking NAC regularly. (It's an open question.)

In any case,  Michael Rae's 2017 post is hardly the final word on the issue.   (Many  researchers do not agree with Michael Rae on the issue of  general protein moderation/longevity.)  On the issue of dietary sulfur amino acid  [SAA] moderation in particular, see the discussion here,   and   other recent papers such as  this,   this,   this and this   etc. (I don't have time to pull more up now).  

[ The fact remains that most of that evidence about SAA moderation  consists of  animal research bolstered with mechanistic speculation --   "current literature does not offer a complete understanding of the optimal SAA intake for end points such as longevity and chronic disease prevention in humans",  and there is  substantial "uncertainty whether the benefits of diets that restrict sulfur amino acids can be translated to humans." ]

Obviously SAA moderation a very complex  topic,  and my aim wasn't to make any definitive declaration on it. 

I'm simply pointing out that IF someone had decided to eat a WF plant-based diet partly based on the idea that low-SAA plant-based sources of protein are good for you, they should be aware that  long term intake of supplementary NAC may possibly negate some of the benefits of that diet.

Of course I'm going off on a tangent here,  since Mike's video focuses only on short term very high dose glutathione restoration in the elderly.   It needs t be stressed that 7g glycine and 9.3g of NAC /d  (70kg person) is a really massive dose. 

Edited by Sibiriak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sibiriak said:

This issue is not just longevity,  but health in general.   Michael Rae (linked above): 
 

Quote

Moderating Met is Still Good for You

That said, there certainly is some evidence that "moderate MetR" is healthy  — altho' this may simply amount to saying that plant-based sources of protein is good for you, potentially for reasons not related to Met.

IF you want to moderate MET intake,  you may not want to be taking NAC regularly. (It's an open question.)

I think I'm interpreting "moderating Met is still good for you" differently.  No longevity benefit suggests it won't help prevent leading causes of death and poor health such as heart disease, cancer, infectious and degenerative diseases.  I read it as "not causing harm" despite no longevity benefit rather than doing something useful such as making one stronger, smarter or more sexually desirable.  The caveat "potentially for reasons not related to Met" reinforces a lack of concern for obtaining an unknown benefit.

But I suppose I agree for someone who believes moderating MetR has benefits they should weigh them against the expected benefits of NAC.  But there is an additional benefit of NAC that has been overlooked.  It tastes awful.  I propose that spiking the chow of ad libitum fed lab rats with NAC could fully reproduce the benefits of any CR protocol with zero need to restrict food.  The foulness is multiplied when combined with BCAAs which could enable this effect at a very low dose of NAC.

Edited by Todd Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

About a year ago I bought NAC powder from Bulk Supplements through Amazon.   Running low I went back to reorder but it's no longer listed there.  Searching Amazon for NAC turned up nothing even though they used to carry it in many forms.  I went to Bulk Supplements to try and order it direct from them but they were out of stock.  I asked them when it would be restocked and they replied "Never.  The FDA is reclassifying NAC as a drug since it was found helpful for Covid-19."

Although it sounded ridiculously implausible to me a quick web search turned up this story:

https://uncoverdc.com/2021/05/17/effective-against-covid-19-fda-wants-to-ban-dietary-supplement-nac/

It hasn't yet disappeared from all US web retailers but not knowing how long it will remain available I ordered 2.5 KG to repackage and store in a chest freezer and hopefully have a few years supply.

https://www.nutrivitashop.com/n-acetyl-l-cysteine-powder-nac-pharmaceutical-usp-100-pure/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2021 at 12:29 AM, Todd Allen said:

The FDA is reclassifying NAC as a drug since it was found helpful for Covid-19."

What about L-glutathione?  Has it also been found to be helpful for Covid and being reclassified?  Just curious...

Edited by Sibiriak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Sibiriak said:

What about L-glutathione?  Has it also been found to be helpful for Covid and being reclassified?  Just curious..

As far as I know neither glutathione or cysteine are being reclassified, just NAC.  Here's a MedCram video referenced in the story I linked discussing mechanisms by which NAC helps with Covid.  In addition to being a glutathione precursor NAC is a strong mucolytic, has antioxidant and antinflammatory activity and may reduce blood clots.  Apparently it also has good evidence of benefit for influenza too.  

 

Edited by Todd Allen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...