[HN Gopher] Sodium rutin extends lifespan and health span in mic...
___________________________________________________________________
Sodium rutin extends lifespan and health span in mice by 10%
Author : ve55
Score : 57 points
Date : 2021-05-31 20:35 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
| akhilpotla wrote:
| We should investigate the benefits of sodium as well. Sodium is
| vitally important for many bodily function and is a very
| misunderstood nutrient.
|
| Historically people consumed much more salt, and don't give me
| the "people used to die when they were 35" nonsense. There is a
| big difference between being kicked by a horse vs dying of a
| stroke.
| gnulinux wrote:
| I love sodium and virtually never heard of this "sodium is the
| devil" narrative before! (I know right, was I living in a
| cave?) Anyway a few weeks back me and my friend was ordering
| Chinese food. And he was like, meh Chinese food has too much
| sodium let's order something else. Turns out sodium is bad
| because it accumulates water in your body? After that I started
| being super particular about my sodium intake.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantonese_salted_fish#Health_c.
| .. was an eye-opener to me
| typon wrote:
| Wasn't most meat also salted in the past?
| nsajko wrote:
| Depends on the past.
| firecall wrote:
| The past is a long time!
| londons_explore wrote:
| A lot of meat is salted today... Ham... Bacon....
| hypertele-Xii wrote:
| Yes; Salt was among the first preservatives discovered and
| used.
|
| Bacteria landing on salt will quickly find all of their water
| exiting their insides towards the salt. Life ceases to
| function sans water.
| psychometry wrote:
| People used to die when they were 35 because they were getting
| stomach cancer from a lifetime of eating salted meat. The
| invention of refrigeration was one of the most important public
| health accomplishments of the last 150 years.
| martini333 wrote:
| Headline is wrong. Only lifespan did extend by 10%. Not both.
| jeroenhd wrote:
| Great news for aging rodents all around the world! Too bad most
| experiments that work on mice have no or negative effects on
| humans, so we probably won't be able to benefit from this.
| silvergr wrote:
| Would also like some source/info on this, seems suspicious,
| like something that anti-cruelty organizations came up with and
| people are mindlessly believing and repeating...
| TchoBeer wrote:
| Science has produced incredible data on the treatment and care
| of rodents. Almost like they're manipulating us to do work for
| them.
| ravenstine wrote:
| > Too bad most experiments that work on mice have no or
| negative effects on humans
|
| Really? I'm curious where you heard that. (purely curious, not
| saying you're wrong)
| The_rationalist wrote:
| Geroprotectors often transpose well into other species. E.g
| mexidol has a partially related mechanism of action and show
| health benefits in humans. The idea that geroprotectors in mice
| do not transpose in human needs to be substantiated with
| rationale/evidence and scoped to specific classes of
| geroprotectors.
| amelius wrote:
| Perhaps it's part of their natural diet, and not part of the
| typical "lab diet".
| cupcake-unicorn wrote:
| This says one of the highest natural sources is from olives.
| Association with Mediterranean diet maybe? Anyway this is linked
| to quercetin and other citrus bioflavonoids supplements. Pretty
| sure selegiline still knocks this out of the park though.
| nsajko wrote:
| Tangential: I think it should be "we investigate" instead of "we
| investigating" in the first paragraph of the abstract? How can
| such an awful mistaken use of grammar pass peer-review and other
| processes that precede publishing? Or am I the one who is
| mistaken?
|
| EDIT: this is an "early view" of the paper, before it gets
| published. No idea about the implications of that.
| akhilpotla wrote:
| Classic nerds, can't differentiate between substance and
| minutia.
| bluenose69 wrote:
| You are not mistaken. I stopped reading at that point.
|
| Edit: the status is listed as "Online ahead of print", so
| perhaps the error will get corrected prior to publication.
| rapsacnz wrote:
| Give them a break - English is probably not their first
| language.
| schappim wrote:
| Their English is better than my non-existant Chinese.
|
| The Affiliations where: 1. The Brain Science
| Center, Beijing Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Beijing,
| China. 2. Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders, Capital
| Medical University, Beijing, China. 3. Center on
| Translational Neuroscience, College of Life & Environmental
| Science, Minzu University of China, Beijing, China. 4.
| Department of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Noncoding RNA
| Medicine, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Peking University,
| Beijing, China. 5. School of Traditional Chinese
| Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing,
| China.
|
| Should we take this with a grain of sodium chloride instead?
| nsajko wrote:
| Sure, but the publisher is Wiley (from USA), and the journal
| is the British Journal of Pharmacology. Seems like these
| entities should provide someone to proofread the paper before
| it gets publicized in any way?
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| The people behind this seem to be working in Beijing, so
| there's a possibility English isn't the first language they're
| using. I don't want to make assumptions, just give the benefit
| of the doubt. This is science, not literature - there could
| still be value here. Or not. I just wouldn't discount it for a
| typo.
| antioxidant wrote:
| Rutin is basically an antioxidant that contains quercetin. Yet
| another antioxidant which "prolongs" lifespan by a negligible
| percentage compared to other antioxidants and mice on a keto diet
| which avoid the oxidative stress from carbs in the first place.
|
| It seems we always hit a limit to lifespan studies. Unless we are
| able to modify the organs themselves, including the insulin
| response and mTOR, no single substance will ever prolong lifespan
| in a significant way.
| The_rationalist wrote:
| You clearly didn't follow geroprotectors advances. Classical
| antioxidants are weak that's for sure. Mitochondrial targeted
| antioxidants are one millionth time more potent (this is NOT an
| exageration), as such they can double lifespan and eliminate
| entire classes of diseases such as Alzeihmer and Parkinson.
| Only a small minority of people are erudite in geroprotectors
| today and as such only this small minority will be part of the
| first generation to have significantly better ageing.
| bulletsvshumans wrote:
| Links please?
| airesearcher wrote:
| Such as what substances? And are they available in
| supplements?
| The_rationalist wrote:
| There are many but the most studied one is skq1. It is
| marketed as eye drops for slowing age related eye diseases
| such as macular degeneration. It is also marketed as
| cosmetics to be applied on the skin as an anti wrinkle
| agent. Of course those uses are not enough geroprotective.
| The oral pill is in the work and will very probably be the
| breakthrough of the century though, it will take ~a decade
| before being FDA approved. However indeed the currently
| marketed cosmetics are the same active substance and can be
| off-label ingested orally (or sublingually). Anybody doing
| that should read the pubmed papers about Skq1 in order to
| make an informed decision.
|
| The other contender is Fullerene C60 which is bioavailable
| when diluted in oil (e.g olive oil) however it doesn't
| cross the blood brain barrier and hence won't stop your
| current neurodegeneration.
| tormeh wrote:
| I agree. Lots of studies seem focused on slightly slowing the
| accumulation of damage in our bodies over time, but this is a
| battle that can only be lost. Entropy always wins. What we need
| is tech to repair our bodies. The most promising candidate (in
| my uneducated opinion) is using gene editing to correct the
| mutations that accumulate in our genomes.
| bwb wrote:
| Only 8% of experiments on mice work on humans... friendly
| reminder.
| schappim wrote:
| Do you have a reference on this? It'd be quite interesting to
| read further on why studies using mice are often poor
| predictors of human reactions to exposure.
| The_rationalist wrote:
| Source? It would be nice to scope such vague statements. Some
| kind of pharmaceutical mechanism of action ~totally transpose
| to the human while some other do not at all, it's heavily topic
| dependent. For example mitochondrial targeted antioxidant are
| specy agnostic.
| silvergr wrote:
| Would also like some source/info on this, seems suspicious,
| like something that anti-cruelty organizations came up with and
| people are mindlessly believing and repeating...
| amelius wrote:
| That's actually quite a lot.
| The_rationalist wrote:
| Both Fullerene C60 and SkQ1 can _double_ lifespan in mice.
| Everybody should take (at his own risk) SkQ1, it 's gonna create
| a new generation of temporally old but physically young people.
| SKQ1 being considered non toxic and properly eliminated by the
| body and given it's large (>150 studies) body of evidence showing
| revolutionar anti ageing (totally prevent Alzeihmer, Parkinson),
| to me the risk/benefit cost is a no brainer.
|
| In addition to it, mexidol can be a nice augmentation. Of course
| it's only a part of the complete anti ageing solution, see also:
|
| https://www.lifespan.io/road-maps/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/
| http://geroprotectors.org
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-31 23:00 UTC)