tanuki Posted June 1 Report Share Posted June 1 I was using carnosine for several years since I read an article showing 20% lifespan extension in mice fed with carnosine. There were also several human studies showing decrease in AGE formation but I think all of them used obese/diabetic individuals. As the supplement is quite expensive (~40$ per month) I am considering if it is worth such money so recently I revised the available studies. Turned out that the most promising study, the one that showed life extension in mice was using senescence accelerated mice and it improved only average not maximal lifespan: http://protein.bio.msu.ru/biokhimiya/contents/v65/full/65071018.html Strangely , I couldn't find any more lifespan studies with this supplement, the one above was done over 20 years ago. Moreover for some reason SENS foundation members never mention it and decided to go with other agents in their anti AGE program. Seems strange that nobody in anti ageing field further tried to explore it and it remained pretty obscure comparing with other supplements like NAD or astaxanthin. Is there some reason for that I am missing? It seems like a good candidate for ITP study. Have you heard about more recent studies using carnosine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorF Posted June 1 Report Share Posted June 1 I've taken it for several months due to curiosity, discovered no effect of any kind and dropped it as one more useless stuff. IMHO it was a popular recommendation in the health-n-wellness books industry of 200x and popularity declined after these years. Short term controlled studies show no effect, even for not very healthy people, where it is expected somehow e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/22/4835 From my intuitive understanding for it to work it has to be precisely targeted at the brain cells that could benefit from it but there is no delivery vehicle that could do it in a "kanban style", the same as with many things named "promising". Br, Igor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccoy Posted June 2 Report Share Posted June 2 This is one of the most recent reviews on carnosine. I myself am interested in this potential antiaging supplement. According to the author, the picture is still a little confused. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35630780/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccoy Posted June 2 Report Share Posted June 2 The same author published a metanalysis of clinical trials on carnosine and cognitive decline/memory/depression, where only 3 studies resulted to be rigorous enough. The analysis showed some benefits in cognitive decline, less in memory, no benefit in depression. The population was elder people with age-related cognitive decline and people at risk of AD. I agree that the results are not exceptionally glamorous so far. Maybe, as already written, carnosine is not worth the money, or better it may be worth the money for those who may be vulnerable to cognitive decline. But who isn't at a certain age ??? A selective deficit of carnosine has been linked to cognitive decline in AD, also promoted by the age-related increase in CN1 activity in the brain. Along this line, different preclinical studies have demonstrated the neuroprotective and procognitive effects of carnosine in experimental models of AD. It is; therefore, expected that carnosine supplementation can improve cognitive function in elderly subjects with age-related cognitive decline as well as in MCI patients with a high risk to develop AD. We conducted the present systematic review with meta-analysis to investigate the therapeutic potential of carnosine against cognitive decline and depressive symptoms in elderly subjects. We found that carnosine/anserine administered for 12 weeks, at a dose of 500 mg−1 g/day, improved global cognitive function and verbal memory in the four selected double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, whereas no effects were detected on depressive symptoms. These data suggest preliminary evidence of the clinical efficacy of carnosine against cognitive decline, both in elderly subjects and MCI patients, although larger and long-term clinical studies are needed in MCI patients (with or without depression) to confirm the therapeutic potential of carnosine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex K Chen Posted June 3 Report Share Posted June 3 Why carnosine when you can use taurine? Vegans are often deficient in carnosine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanuki Posted June 3 Author Report Share Posted June 3 Thanks @mccoy , will dive in when I have a moment @IgorF Actually I wouldn't expect much benefit from any short term studies. The main antiaging benefit of the carnosine should be decreasing burden of dietary AGEs and the formation of the new ones inside body, that's why I tend to take it with a meal. Cardiovascular disease takes many years to develop and AGEs are only one of factors there so it's dubious if anything can be find in 14 weeks study. The most reasonable study would be lifelong study of animals where the experimental arm would be supplemented with carnosine, then we could evaluate it's effect on the survival rates. Something like ITP mice study. Potential issue is that AGEs are only one of the hallmarks of ageing so in isolation effect could be too small to be detectable, especially in mice that often die due to cancer that as far as I know isn't affected in any way by glycation. Don't know if taurine has behind many research showing efficacy in preventing glycation so not sure if thats an alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IgorF Posted June 4 Report Share Posted June 4 (edited) Hm, for the sake of curiosity googled for it again Carnosine and advanced glycation end products: a systematic review https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29858687/ the only meaningful thing from it (invitros, animal studies and so on is not interesting, they are pre-pre-preliminary things before making any conclusion about reasonability for later decisions on human studies) is this one l-Carnosine supplementation attenuated fasting glucose, triglycerides, advanced glycation end products, and tumor necrosis factor-α levels in patients with type 2 diabetes: a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29420997/ Quote In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 54 patients with T2D were recruited and assigned into either intervention group (n=27, receiving 2 capsules of l-carnosine 500 mg each) or control group (n=27). Blood samples and dietary intakes information were collected at baseline and after 12 weeks of intervention. l-Carnosine supplementation resulted in significant decrease in fat mass and an increase in fat-free mass in the intervention group compared with the placebo group (1.5% and 1.7%, respectively) (P<.05). A significant reduction in fasting blood glucose (13.1 mg/dL); glycated hemoglobin (.6%); and serum levels of triglycerides (29.8 mg/dL), carboxymethyl lysine (91.8 ng/mL), and tumor necrosis factor-α was detected in the l-carnosine group compared with the placebo group (P<.05). In the l-carnosine group, a significant reduction in serum pentosidine levels (2.8 ng/mL) was observed compared with those at baseline (P<.05). No significant differences were observed in dietary intake, body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, fasting insulin levels, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance and secretion, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, sRAGE, interleukin (IL)-6, and IL-1β levels between the groups after adjusting for baseline values and covariates (P>.05). Collectively, l-carnosine lowered fasting glucose, serum levels of triglycerides, AGEs, and tumor necrosis factor-α without changing sRAGE, IL-6, and IL-1β levels in T2D patients. Here what really matters is the dose - 1g and the participants - people with considerably higher blood glucose. The overall decrease in the blood glucose level of 13 mg/dl for diabetics is while significant speaking honestly is not a big gain. What does it mean? There is no magic mechanism suspected to be present, it is stochastic molecules contact that made it, lower dose of the drug will make it even more insignificant. For people with 2 times lower glucose levels (=no diabetes) 2 times lower drug dose will make the overall result indistinguishable from fluctuations caused by normal life circumstances. And that is not discussing if AGEs created by consuming good diet without longterm calories extra are so unwanted. The story is not different comparing to other "beneficial" molecules, the strongest are demonstrating the same statistically significant effect in therapeutic doses (e.g. 3g of omega3 on lipid profile and stories like that) and that makes me very skeptical about them. Taurine mentioned above has orders of magnitude more published studies and is cheaper to be implemented into a daily routines (perhaps just to calm down the anxiety generated by the "longevity" hypesters everywhere novadays - no irony, a plausible approach from the psychological perspective). At the daily price of 50g of sprouts or a handful of berries I think carnosine is not worse it. Br, Igor Edited June 4 by IgorF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mccoy Posted October 22 Report Share Posted October 22 I started to supplement with L-carnosine, as part of Sandra Kauffman's Panacea protocol, which I modified a little. Kauffman's model is conceptually satisfying and she has cited a lot of research An interesting video on L-carnosine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.