Life extending effects of nucleic acid supplementation
Taka
Practical, Scientific Approach (more than 2.5 million copies sold), is
generally recognized as the spark that ignited the currently popular
field of anti-aging/life extension medicine. Pearson and Shaw’s
blockbuster extolled the free radical theory of aging and introduced
the terms free radicals and antioxidants to millions of non-scientist
health enthusiasts. However, Pearson and Shaw’s success was partially
due to another popular book that helped to pave the way, which
preceded their publication by six years.
In 1976, a pioneering New York medical doctor named Benjamin Frank
created a minor sensation with his book—Dr. Frank’s No-Aging Diet. Dr.
Frank was unique. He was not only an MD, but also had a PhD in
biochemistry. He was simultaneously a practicing physician and
researcher, performing anti-aging experiments with mice and rats in
addition to taking care of his patients.
Dr. Frank was ahead of his time. He was an early advocate of high-dose
vitamin therapy (especially Bs, C, & E), plus other nutrients not well
known or available in the early ’60s through the mid-’70s when he did
most of his research. For example, he recommended the use of
carnosine, CoQ10, lipoic acid, DMG (then known as “Vitamin B15”),
glycerol phosphate (magnesium glycerophosphate — he believed several
grams per day promoted cell membrane integrity, and also restored
receptors), vanadium, orotic acid, lecithin, choline, and inositol. A
further indication of his foresight was his recommendation of the use
of biguanide drugs like metformin, which is now becoming recognized as
one of the most effective anti-aging drugs currently available (see my
article, Metformin—An Effective and Underappreciated Life Extension
Drug, in the November 1998 issue of Vitamin Research News).
Dr. Frank’s Theory of Aging
Dr. Frank theorized that aging and degenerative diseases are caused by
the loss of cellular energy production (ATP) due to membrane damage
and decreased efficiency of the Kreb’s cycle and the associated
electron transport chain. He also believed that damage to cellular DNA
from free radicals and crosslinkages could not be repaired due to
inadequate cellular energy and availability of “raw materials” (i.e.,
nucleotides and nucleic acids [Fig.1.]) to repair the DNA. He believed
that this decay of DNA further led to improper formation of messenger
RNA and ribosomal RNA, which in turn led to abnormalities and
structural defects in the cell. Frank’s theory is clearly related to
the mitochondrial, free radical, crosslinkage, and membrane theories
of aging, all previously discussed in Vitamin Research News.
The key difference between Dr. Frank’s theory and the approach used by
advocates of the other related theories is the specific anti-aging
therapy that he recommended—high-dose nucleic acids, combined with
high potency multivitamins. Dr. Frank did not discount the approaches
recommended by other researchers—he believed, however, that their
methods (i.e., antioxidants, cross-linkage inhibitors) would not be
effective unless combined with adequate amounts of RNA.
Dr. Frank believed that one cause of inadequate concentrations of RNA
and nucleotides for repair and production of energy is an age-related
increase in enzymes that destroy nucleic acids (i.e., nucleases—
specifically, ribonuclease, which breaks down RNA). As people grow
older, ribonuclease enzyme activity has been reported to increase.
Consequently, just as the requirement to repair damaged cells
increases, the substances required for this repair (nucleic acids) are
being degraded by higher concentrations of destructive enzymes.
Consequently, Dr. Frank believed older people have an even higher
requirement for nucleic acids than younger people. Thus, the older we
get, the greater our need for nucleic acids, both for replacement and
for repair.
Nucleic Acids as Potential Life Extending, Disease-Preventing
Nutrients
Dr. Frank believed that exogenous RNA, especially when combined with
associated B vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and sugars (like D-
ribose) would enter the cell and aid in normal regeneration of the
damaged cellular elements. This would, in turn, bring about normal
enzyme synthesis and activation, and most importantly would increase
cellular energy production. For this reason, Frank believed that
providing RNA and associated compounds would aid in the repair of
damaged DNA. He knew that ribonucleic acid is important in the
initiation of DNA synthesis, acting in a coenzyme-like fashion. Dr.
Frank stated, “The importance of nucleic acids in protein synthesis
and in enzyme synthesis, as well as the importance of RNA in bringing
about DNA synthesis, and the actually observed anti-aging effects of
nucleic acids on whole man, support the claims regarding the value of
increased intake of nucleic acids in the prevention and treatment of
cellular degeneration.”
Dr. Frank claimed that not only do nucleic acids (1) decrease overall
oxygen utilization, but also (2) increase its inherent effectiveness,
lessening potential oxidative damage to the cell. He believed that the
“anti-anoxia effect” of nucleic acids (ability to do better work on
less oxygen) was due to the increased synthesis of CoQ10 and
enhancement of the efficiency of Kreb’s cycle and respiratory chain.
He believed nucleic acids might even lead to increased synthesis of
mitochondria.
Dr. Frank described the dramatic results of his use of oral and
injectable ribonucleic acid in the prevention and treatment of a wide
variety of age-related illnesses. He used a nucleic acid-rich diet and
nucleic acid extracts for a variety of ills including emphysema, heart
disease, diabetic complications, arthritis, fading eyesight, memory
loss, and other diseases of aging. He believed that nucleic acids
should be considered as essential nutrients, along with fats,
carbohydrates, proteins, vitamins and minerals.
Dr. Frank reported that a common finding of those on a high nucleic
acid diet was a normalization of blood lipid levels. This was
reflected by a drop in total cholesterol and triglycerides, and an
elevation of HDL. He believed that the cholesterol-lowering effect of
nucleic acid-rich diets was due to increased ATP formation, enhanced
electron transport chain activity, improved CoQ10 and cytochrome
oxidase synthesis, and increased NADH oxidation.
He also reported that some of the earliest noticeable effects of RNA
therapy were increased energy, followed by improved skin tone, with
increased elasticity and reduction in fine wrinkles. He frequently
referred to the skin-tightening effect, causing folds to diminish and
the skin to acquire a tighter and more youthful appearance.
Frank’s dietary recommendations included:
Four days per week—eat one can of small sardines.
Eat fish on the other three days.
Calve’s liver once/week
Lentils, peas, lima beans, or soybeans.
Asparagus, radishes, onions, scallions, mushrooms, spinach,
cauliflower, or celery.
Seven glasses of fluid per day—4 of water, 2 milk, and 1 vegetable.
While most modern nutritionists attribute the benefits of a high fish
diet to the concentration of omega 3 fatty acids, Dr. Frank was of the
opinion that it was primarily due to the high content of nucleic acids
in most fish, and especially in sardines. (He did not discount the
possible benefit of the omega 3 fatty acids, but believed that they
were merely a synergistic adjunct to the nucleic acids.) He reported
that sardines contain 1.5 percent nucleic acid, liver approximately
0.5 percent, and muscle meat 0.05 percent. Consequently, Dr. Frank had
many anti-aging activists in the mid-’70s eating sardines like crazy.
(Frankly, I got sick of eating sardine sandwiches!)
Dr. Frank recommended consuming a minimum of 1.5 gm daily of nucleic
acid for general health and well being. However, he recommended much
higher doses for those with specific health concerns. He cautioned,
however, that when taking higher therapeutic doses of RNA, that urine
pH be only slightly in the acid range. He found that highly acidic
urine with a high RNA diet (more than 2 gm daily) may result in
elevated levels of uric acid in the blood, which can cause kidney
stones. This can be easily prevented by drinking plenty of water.
Urine acid-base balance (pH) can be easily tested by using urine pH
test strips.
Clinically, Dr. Frank used dosages of RNA between 500 mg-20 gm. He
usually recommended the higher doses (over 5 grams) be used several
times per week. If dosages higher than 2 gm daily were taken, Dr.
Frank recommended doing so under the care of a physician, where BUN,
creatinine and uric acid levels could be monitored, and recommended
that the urine pH be maintained near 6 (i.e., between 5.0-7.0). Dr.
Frank stated that those with uric acid of 2-3 mg can take considerably
larger amounts of nucleic acid than those with levels closer to 5, 6,
or 7 mg. Higher amounts of uric acid can be better tolerated in near
alkaline urine than in very acid urine. It should be noted that he
never observed any problems in people with normal kidney function, who
drank adequate fluids and maintained urine pH in the desired range. He
recommended that additional protection could be gained by consuming
adequate amounts (500-1,000 mg) of magnesium each day.
Historical Basis of RNA as an Anti-Aging Supplement
Dr. Frank was not the first to experiment with nucleic acids. In 1908,
Dr. C.S. Minot first proposed that nucleic acids were vital for the
health of cells and were essential for the longevity of the organism.
However, the first evidence that nucleic acids might actually promote
longevity was demonstrated by a series of experiments conducted by Dr.
T. Brailsford Robertson in Australia in 1928. Dr. Robertson believed
that the lifespan of organisms was determined by the ratio of nuclear
(chromosomal) materials to the cytoplasm (protein) of the cells. He
referred to this ratio as the “nucleocytoplasmic ratio”—and proposed
that the way to optimize this ratio was to supply the nuclei of the
organism with nutrients in “excessive abundance.”
He tested his hypothesis in a series of experiments. He used 30-40
male and 30-40 female mice in each test group, with a similar group of
controls in each experiment. The test groups received 25 mg of yeast
nucleic acid each day throughout their lives. Robertson’s hypothesis
was apparently confirmed, as the results were strikingly and uniformly
positive. He reported an average lifespan extension of 12.5 percent
for males, and 17 percent for females (Fig. 3).
Despite these positive, provocative results, almost twenty years
elapsed before any further research was done in this area. In the
mid-1940s, Dr. Thomas Gardner, an organic chemist in the scientific
department of Hoffman-La Roche, picked up where Robertson had left
off. Gardner agreed with Robertson’s hypothesis that the
nucleocytoplasmic ratio decreased with aging, but was not convinced
that correcting this ratio was the mechanism of RNA’s life-prolonging
effects. He proposed several other possible mechanisms for these
benefits. He suggested that nucleic acids might slow down the
metabolism of the nucleus of the cell. He reasoned that if nucleic
acids were provided to the cell in high amounts, they could be
utilized in metabolism without destroying the nucleus or cytoplasm,
and thereby enable the cells to live longer at a higher energy level.
Alternatively, he theorized that the life-prolonging effect of yeast
nucleic acid might be due to its ability to stimulate the immune
system, since sodium yeast nucleinate was known to stimulate the
growth and proliferation of white blood cells (leukocytes). He equated
this to the proposed anti-aging effects of Anti-Reticulo Cytotoxic
Serum (ARCS) then being used in Russia (Bogomolets). ARCS was briefly
reviewed in the August, 2003 issue of Vitamin Research News.
Whatever the mechanism, Gardner attempted to replicate Robertson’s
work, with several modifications. First, he began his studies with
mice that were 600 days old (instead of beginning treatment after
weaning, as Robertson had done), because “mice are beginning to get
old at that age.” Also, he believed that Robertson’s dosages were
unrealistically high. He calculated that 25 mg per mouse per day would
translate into a human dose of 55 gm per day. Gardner was apparently
considering human use of RNA, and realized that few humans could
consume such high doses. Consequently, Gardner administered 1/10th of
the dosage used by Robertson, resulting in a daily RNA dosage of 2.5
mg per mouse per day. This corresponded to an equivalent human dosage
of 5.5 grams per day, which Gardner believed could be practically
consumed.
Gardner used 72 female and 31 male albino mice, divided into test and
control groups. Gardner reported that the treated mice retained
vitality and vigor longer than the controls, fewer went blind, and the
treated mice appeared healthier and exhibited greater activity than
the controls. Although the lifespan extension of the mice receiving
nucleic acids was not as great as reported by Robertson, there was an
overall trend toward increased longevity in the nucleic acid-treated
mice. Gardner attributed his less spectacular results to the fact that
he started the experiment when the mice were already advanced in age,
and that the dosage was so much less than that administered by
Robertson.
Interestingly, Gardner reported that Robertson and his staff had taken
15 gm yeast nucleic acid per day, and that Gardner himself (perhaps as
a result of observing his healthy mice) had been taking 5 gm of yeast
nucleic acid for weeks “without any ill effects.” He concluded that
“As Robertson tested with three times the amounts I have suggested for
[human] use, there is no reason known at the present time for fearing
to use yeast nucleic acid freely for veterinary experimental purposes…
and…for extending their life spans as well as for experimental therapy
on aging men and women for the same purpose.”
Nearly another twenty years were to elapse before further experiments
with RNA were conducted—this time with even more spectacular results.
Dr. Max Odens conducted a study with ten 750-day-old rats, of a
species that had a normal lifespan of 800-900 days. Five rats were
untreated controls. The other five received weekly injections of “DNA
solution in water…plus ordinary RNA.” Unfortunately, details of the
exact composition and dosage that was administered were not given.
After twelve weeks of injections, Odens reported that the treated rats
looked younger, were very lively, and had gained weight, in contrast
to the untreated rats which “looked old, moved slowly, did not eat
much, and had lost weight. The difference was remarkable.” Odens
further reported that all of the untreated rats died before 900 days,
while 4 of the treated rats survived between 1600 and 1900 days, and
one rat lived 2250 days! Odens concluded that “with weekly injections
of DNA and RNA, the life span of 4 rats was doubled on the average,
and the life span of the fifth rat was more than trebled.” These
results are frankly, hard to believe. But some credence must be given
this report, considering the journal in which it was published—the
prestigious Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.
Conclusion
The claims for the life-extending benefit of nucleic acid
administration are supported by a diverse series of experiments that
span nearly 50 years. Based on these findings and the reports by Dr.
Frank of its widespread clinical benefits with human use, I
consequently agree with Dr. Frank’s recommendation to add at least 1.5
grams per day of nucleic acids to an anti-aging nutritional supplement
regimen. This recommendation is buttressed by the facts that two of
the research teams admitted taking high dose nucleic acids themselves,
after seeing the effects they had on their experimental animals, and
that the third researcher also recommended consideration of nucleic
acid supplementation for human and veterinary use. It is surprising
that more researchers have not attempted to replicate these studies—
especially when considering the high degree of safety and minimal cost
of high quality yeast-derived nucleic acids that are available today.
SOURCE: http://www.vrp.com/newsletter.aspx#1083
-----------------------
Isn't the "nucleocytoplasmic ratio" determined by the TOR signaling?
Taka
François Rose
> Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw’s 1982 bestselling book, Life Extension— A
> Practical, Scientific Approach (more than 2.5 million copies sold), is
> generally recognized as the spark that ignited the currently popular
> field of anti-aging/life extension medicine. Pearson and Shaw’s
> blockbuster extolled the free radical theory of aging and introduced
> the terms free radicals and antioxidants to millions of non-scientist
> health enthusiasts. However, Pearson and Shaw’s success was partially
> due to another popular book that helped to pave the way, which
> preceded their publication by six years.
>
>
> Dr. Frank was ahead of his time. He was an early advocate of high-dose
> vitamin therapy (especially Bs, C, & E), plus other nutrients not well
> known or available in the early ’60s through the mid-’70s when he did
> most of his research. For example, he recommended the use of
> carnosine, CoQ10, lipoic acid, DMG (then known as “Vitamin B15”),
> glycerol phosphate (magnesium glycerophosphate — he believed several
> grams per day promoted cell membrane integrity, and also restored
> receptors), vanadium, orotic acid, lecithin, choline, and inositol. A
> further indication of his foresight was his recommendation of the use
> of biguanide drugs like metformin, which is now becoming recognized as
> one of the most effective anti-aging drugs currently available (see my
> article, Metformin—An Effective and Underappreciated Life Extension
> Drug, in the November 1998 issue of Vitamin Research News).
>
> SOURCE:http://www.vrp.com/newsletter.aspx#1083
> -----------------------
>
> Isn't the "nucleocytoplasmic ratio" determined by the TOR signaling?
>
> Taka
First:
"Dr. Frank believed that because of the very pronounced anti-aging
effect seen with increased nucleic acid relative to his own intake, he
could live considerably longer, perhaps to near 150 years of age.
<snip> Ironically, in less than a year after making this bold
prediction, Dr. Frank had passed away at the age of 57-a victim of
type 1 diabetes, a severe, age-accelerating disease which he had
battled since childhood. It is a testimony to Dr. Franks brilliance
that he survived as long as he did, suffering from as severe a case of
diabetes as he had. " (sic)
from http://www.vrp.com/articles.aspx?ProdID=art1166&zTYPE=2
age 57 !!!!!!!!!!!
Second
The diet he recommended is typically the one you despise , Taka
so I don't get your point .
François Rose