#221

They are not experts in the field of taurine supplementation. We tend to view “experts” with a halo effect. Wow, this guy is really smart so he must know a lot about …

9 Likes
#222

I always give @desertshores comments extra merit, not because of his age but because of how cearly articulate and sharp he is at his age. He simply doesn’t “write” like a typical 80-something. If there’s something I can take/do to have equally good cognitive function in my 80’s, I want to.

12 Likes
#223

That’s an easy call. Glycine caused a tiny l (4%–6%) extension of life when fed at enormous doses (8% of their diet by weight).

And that’s all we know. Taurine caused double that life extension at more reasonable doses, plus a wide range of other health effects and mechanistic evidence on multiple Hallmarks of aging — and we have supporting data in monkeys and human trials.

3 Likes
#224

I alternate between the two in my morning coffee. Taurine one day… then Glycine the next.

Am I missing something,

Best of both.

3 Likes
#225

You’d prefer the opinion of strangers here?

They may not be Taurine experts, but they clearly are very intelligent and knowledgeable professionals.

3 Likes
#226

Glycine gives a large boost to longevity (similar to taurine in mice) when paired with an equal amount of cysteine (NAC). Some people would therefore prefer taurine over GLYNAC due to the potential side-effects of NAC (possible increased risk of lung cancer due to the anti-oxidant effect). Personally, I view this risk as low and supplement with both GLYNAC and taurine.

4 Likes
#227

When we consider GLY/NAC we face a contradiction. Some human data might indicate an increased risk of some cancers. But if that data is from people taking acetyl cysteine as a medication due to lung disease, then the increased incidence of lung cancer might be related to smoking or to other pathological processes in the lung. This is a speculative thought, but I will try to find out if this is the case.

The contradiction is that NAC and glycine produce massive life extension in mice, and we know that most mice die from cancer. Some have called mice - little cancer factories. And yet, GLY/NAC produced massive life extension in mice.

3 Likes
#228

NAC was seen to increase the incidence of lung cancer in mice. It did massively extend the lifespan of these little cancer factories though (~28%) Also, 3 studies were done and only one had a positive correlation between NAC and lung cancer. One was neutral. One showed NAC prevented lung cancer. Antioxidants as a whole are generally thought to be pro-cancer though as our body uses oxidation (ROS) to destroy cancer cells and antioxidants hinder that.

As far as I’m concerned, GLYNAC is still a great choice and I will continue to take it. The rewards seem to outweigh the risk.

3 Likes
#229

yes, it is a risk reward calculation. Here is another perspecitve of the dilemma:

N-Acetyl Cysteine: A Warning Shot | Science | AAAS

1 Like
#230

Yes, that’s the article about the French study that links NAC to increased lung cancer chances in mice.

Here’s the paper:

And we have to remember that mice are cancer-prone. I haven’t seen any studies linking NAC to lung cancer in humans.

The other important fact is that this study was done on NAC alone and not in combination with Glycine. Glycine + NAC = Glutathione (GSH). Glutathione can protect your body from carcinogens (Hence why the mice lived so much longer) but reduces the effects of chemotherapy (I’m sure the mice didn’t get this). If you have cancer, you should halt all NAC or glutathione supplementation.

4 Likes
#231

Afaik Stanfield is taking some taurine through his own supplement.

2 Likes
#232

It is interesting that NAC is inhibiting mTOR in SLE patients and reducing symptoms of the disease. There are also interesting trials with NAC in the domain of psychiatry. This indicate that NAC might have systemic effects in many organs system and in a rather distinct way promote increased wellbeing.

Does anybody notice an effect on wellbeing when started on NAC in doses over 2,5 gr?

“Based on GSH depletion in patients with SLE [6], a 3-month phase I-phase II double-blind placebo-controlled randomized pilot study of NAC in 36 subjects was done to look for its immunological and therapeutic impact (Table ​(Table2).2). The study found the drug to be safe and effective at doses of 2.4 and 4.8 g/day in reversing the depletion of glutathione and in improving disease activity and the fatigue level. This dose of NAC reduced the SLEDAI (SLE Disease Activity Index) score and the BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) score and profoundly reduced mTOR activity in T lymphocytes [9]. Specifically, the double negative T cells are the main cells affected by the blockade of mTOR by NAC [9]. In fact, kynurenine’s accumulation plays a role in the activation of mTOR in SLE [19]. Kynurenine is a metabolite of the pentose phosphate pathway which serves as a metabolic checkpoint in the pathogenesis of SLE in double negative T cells which are a source of interleukin 4, interleukin 17 and necrotic debris. Treatment with NAC increased the abundance of NADPH which in turn resulted in increased catabolism by NADPH-dependent kynurenine hydroxylase leading to lower levels of kynurenine which subsequently inhibited the mTOR pathway in those T cells [19].”

1 Like
#233

Experts conduct the studies and write the papers. Commentators and bloggers make YouTube videos and/or sell their advice.

4 Likes
#234

Rather simplistic viewpoints.

#235

I don’t think that argument is sound. What matters is not the absolute concentration, but the fall with age, which is similar (≈70%) across mice, monkeys, and humans.

I watched this presentation and don’t recall him saying that, though he did point out that vegans have low intake and therefore might be more in need of supplementation than omnivores. Can you point to a timestamp? Regardless: young vegans have ≈20% lower levels than young omnivores, but the decline in humans from age 20 to age 60 is ≈80%, so everyone will need to supplement if the goal is to restore youthful levels.

6 Likes
#236

Sorry I don’t have a time stamp. It was a month ago. I’m not motivated to listen to it again but I am not a religious diet person and don’t care what diet you follow: I expect that if I took the time to write it then that is what I heard from the presentation.

1 Like
#237

An older paper to review;

4 Likes
#238

The Columbia research didn’t do any human supplementation: they are imputing the 6 g dose from allometric scaling. The only human data they gathered was observational, plus one study where they showed that a bout of endurance exercise elevated plasma T.

In the Yadav study, even 1000 mg/kg by gavage (which is the basis of the 6 g extrapolation) wasn’t enough to fully restore youthful T, so you would expect it would be better to go higher.

2 Likes
#239

Well, you’re missing having youthful taurine for over half the time. The Yadav study found taking half the dose once daily was less effective than taking the full dose; taking the full dose once every 48 hours seems less likely to allow your cells to operate youthfully.

5 Likes
#240

Attia isn’t saying there’s a downside: he’s saying he doesn’t think the mouse study can be extrapolated to humans. I disagree as noted in another post.

1 Like