Harris CoQ Study?
Michael J. Rae
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
Both Roy Walford (in _The Anti-Aging Plan_) and Jean Carper (in _Stop
Aging Now!_) refer to studies by Steve HArris of UCLA showing increased
mean (median?) lifespan in rodents on CoQ supplementation. Such a study
would be a useful complement to Bliznakov's work.
Unfortunately, nether provides a reference for such a study, and MEDLINE
comes up blank. Anyone have a citation?
Thanks in advance!
Love is the law, love under will.
-Michael
_________________________________________________________________________
The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) is the most serious threat
to the democratic process, the environment, human rights, and real
third-world development to emerge in the post-WWII era. Find out more at
<www.flora.org>. Please FAX your elected representatives, as the next
meeting is in the last week of October. In Canada, FAX Sergio Marchi,
Minister for International Trade, at (613) 947 - 4452.
Tom Matthews
>
> All:
>
> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
>
> Both Roy Walford (in _The Anti-Aging Plan_) and Jean Carper (in _Stop
> Aging Now!_) refer to studies by Steve HArris of UCLA showing increased
> mean (median?) lifespan in rodents on CoQ supplementation. Such a study
> would be a useful complement to Bliznakov's work.
>
> Unfortunately, nether provides a reference for such a study, and MEDLINE
> comes up blank. Anyone have a citation?
It is my understanding that because the study produced a negative result
for increasing the maximum lifespan which was its primary goal, it was
never published in any peer reviewed journal. However, feeding CoQ10 to
mice did "square" their mortality vs age curve very nicely.
The research was presented at an early A4M meeting and should be
published in the proceedings of that conference. Unfortunately, this
does not qualify as a peer reviewed publication and such proceedings
publication abstracts do not get put on medline (as they indeed should
not).
--Tom
Tom Matthews
The LIFE EXTENSION FOUNDATION - http://www.lef.org - 800-544-4440
A non-profit membership organization dedicated to the extension
of the healthy human lifespan through ground breaking research,
innovative ideas and practical methods.
LIFE EXTENSION MAGAZINE - The ultimate source for new
health and medical findings from around the world.
Steven B. Harris
Alas, all too true. One of these days I'm going to get together all
my lovely essentially negative results from feeding long-lived mice
chromium picolinate, CoQ10, megadose folate, WR-2721, procysteine, and
publish them in a short paper, just to save some other poor schmuck
from doing the same. Meanwhile, publishing negative results in bloated
papers is basically CV padding, which I hate (I'm working on stuff now
which is much more interesting and medically relevent-- and I'd have to
take time away from that). The CoQ10 stuff was the most interesting,
but curve squaring is not anti-aging. I had a lot of great looking
mice die at the end from lymphoma. Is that a tradeoff people would
make? Is it even relevent to people, since mice are much more prone to
lymphoma? And what about the fact that I was feeding CoQ10, which is
what humans make, when mice themselves make CoQ9 (which I couldn't
feed, since it's not economically available)? It's all very
mysterious.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Michael J. Rae
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
On 2 Feb 1999, Steven B. Harris wrote:
> >Michael J. Rae wrote:
> >> Both Roy Walford (in _The Anti-Aging Plan_) and Jean Carper (in
> _Stop
> >> Aging Now!_) refer to studies by Steve HArris of UCLA showing
> increased
> >> mean (median?) lifespan in rodents on CoQ supplementation. Such a
> >
> >It is my understanding that because the study produced a negative
> result
> >for increasing the maximum lifespan which was its primary goal, it was
> >never published in any peer reviewed journal. However, feeding CoQ10
> to
> >mice did "square" their mortality vs age curve very nicely.
> >
> Alas, all too true. One of these days I'm going to get together all
> my lovely essentially negative results from feeding long-lived mice
> chromium picolinate, CoQ10, megadose folate, WR-2721, procysteine, and
> publish them in a short paper, just to save some other poor schmuck
> from doing the same. Meanwhile, publishing negative results in bloated
> papers is basically CV padding, which I hate (I'm working on stuff now
I personally am very interested in negative results, if only so as to
avoid wasting my money onuseless supplements! But squaring the curve is
still a 'positive' result, IMHO, even if it isn't a true age-slowing one.
PLEASE do publish all this data!! Hell, even a webpage (non-peer
reviewed) would give us SOMETHING.
How much CoQ were you feeding 'em? How much CrPic? Did the latter
confirm Evans' curve-squaring? What about folate?
Thanks! I had no idea you were on the list...
Steven B. Harris
<mr...@calcna.ab.ca> writes:
>PLEASE do publish all this data!! Hell, even a webpage (non-peer
>reviewed) would give us SOMETHING.
Hmmmm. One more thing for the Harris Web Page.
>
>How much CoQ were you feeding 'em?
1 part per 1000 in the dry diet. About 750 mg/day in terms of human
mg/kg diet/day. And 7 times more than that in terms of mg/kg human per
day, since mice eat 7 times more per body weight than people do.
How much CrPic?
1 part in 10,000 as Cr. About 75 mg (75,000 mcg) Cr per day in human
terms. 375 times the top "safe and effective" 200 mcg per day.
> Did the latter
>confirm Evans' curve-squaring?
Nope. Nor did the animals lose weight. However, all were
restricted by 10% anyway, and I didn't try it on fat ad libers.
> What about folate?
1 part per 1000 again. Imagine 750 mg folate a day, when the RDA is
around .4 mg. No effect at all, so far as I can see from the gross
life span curves. Haven't analyzed cause of death yet (I had hoped
for less cancer). As I noted, for the CoQ10, what happened was that
mid-life lymphomas were shifted to late life. We say what looked very
much like an antiaging effect in the last animals, but they died of
lymphoma so we never got to see them get decrepit.
Robert Ames
sbha...@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris) wrote:
>for less cancer). As I noted, for the CoQ10, what happened was that
>mid-life lymphomas were shifted to late life. We say what looked very
>much like an antiaging effect in the last animals, but they died of
>lymphoma so we never got to see them get decrepit.
Is there any evidence that CoQ10 is therapeutic for lymphoma once
it is established?