My anti-aging formula: No covid vaccine. No mask.Sunlight. Family. Exercise, Organic vegetables. Faith in the ultimate goodness of the universe (in spite of the career of Dr Anthony Fauci).
We need a positive control = NAC without Gly. NAC has been shown to increase GSH in humans, and extends lifespan in rodents. What's not to love? But there have never been trials to show that Gly-NAC is an improvement over NAC alone.
I would like that, too, in my perfect world of data acquisition; but since the authors have also published on glycine alone before devoting themselves to this combination, and they have their theoretical explanation as to why the two are safer together rather than apart (https://twitter.com/buzzhollandermd/status/1565113434244407296?s=20&t=pidmD-aC2vAFFjYNfjWCRg), this is where we have the intriguing data right now. Worth it to burn the resources of another study arm with just NAC? Maybe... but if push came to shove, I'd throw in the cheap supplement w/o known safety concerns (glycine) and do an extra arm with a lower dose of GlyNAC. I know the NAC purists do not approve of this message!
Study size is too small to have a clear conclusion. Drop out rates and unclear endpoints can really skew things. A example of known drop out effects include if a person doesn't improve or feels worse they will drop out of studys at a higher rate than those improving. So if your studying isn't designed well it will amplify benefit effects
All a study size this big can tell you is there might be something worth justifiying gathering the resources for a bigger study.
This one only had one drop-out in the 36 participants, which they claimed was not trial-related, so that's not the issue. However, they don't reveal the effect by trial participant, which they could have in a trial this small. Could it be that 2-3 super-responders out of 11 drove the bulk of the positive numbers? It's always a risk with such tiny numbers. I think they would agree this is more of a "pilot study" due to size, but they easily reached statistical significance in most measures due to the rather remarkable effect, legitimate or nay.
I found NAC for about $30 for a month supply (that's at 6 grams a day) and Glycine for about $15 for a month supply. So a very affordable $45 a month. At 59 and still involved in competitive sports this might be worth a try.
As I replied elsewhere, the concern is if you are getting the same quality NAC as the trial used. Ofc, we have that concern paying 10X that price, too!
I'll throw in a complete amino acid supplement which should cover the "patented formulation" contained in Celltrient. Might bring it to $100 a month. Who knows, right?
Since these supplements are available individually and are fairly cheap, it should be easy to try. About $70 a month I think. If the results are as advertised a couple of months should answer the question for anyone inclined to give it a go.
My concern is, "Why is the big bulk bag of NAC priced at 10-20% the cost of higher end supplement makers?" Maybe it's the same exact stuff. Maybe it is some batches, not others. Maybe it never is. I'm not aware of the agencies who test supplements (themselves not always 100% reliable) running tests on the makers of NAC. But it makes me nervous taking such huge doses of something at a discount rate!
My anti-aging formula: No covid vaccine. No mask.Sunlight. Family. Exercise, Organic vegetables. Faith in the ultimate goodness of the universe (in spite of the career of Dr Anthony Fauci).
yes , but smoking that antivax koolaid ultimately make make you sick…
We need a positive control = NAC without Gly. NAC has been shown to increase GSH in humans, and extends lifespan in rodents. What's not to love? But there have never been trials to show that Gly-NAC is an improvement over NAC alone.
I would like that, too, in my perfect world of data acquisition; but since the authors have also published on glycine alone before devoting themselves to this combination, and they have their theoretical explanation as to why the two are safer together rather than apart (https://twitter.com/buzzhollandermd/status/1565113434244407296?s=20&t=pidmD-aC2vAFFjYNfjWCRg), this is where we have the intriguing data right now. Worth it to burn the resources of another study arm with just NAC? Maybe... but if push came to shove, I'd throw in the cheap supplement w/o known safety concerns (glycine) and do an extra arm with a lower dose of GlyNAC. I know the NAC purists do not approve of this message!
Nattokinase and serrapeptase extend lives that would end by clot.
Study size is too small to have a clear conclusion. Drop out rates and unclear endpoints can really skew things. A example of known drop out effects include if a person doesn't improve or feels worse they will drop out of studys at a higher rate than those improving. So if your studying isn't designed well it will amplify benefit effects
All a study size this big can tell you is there might be something worth justifiying gathering the resources for a bigger study.
This one only had one drop-out in the 36 participants, which they claimed was not trial-related, so that's not the issue. However, they don't reveal the effect by trial participant, which they could have in a trial this small. Could it be that 2-3 super-responders out of 11 drove the bulk of the positive numbers? It's always a risk with such tiny numbers. I think they would agree this is more of a "pilot study" due to size, but they easily reached statistical significance in most measures due to the rather remarkable effect, legitimate or nay.
I found NAC for about $30 for a month supply (that's at 6 grams a day) and Glycine for about $15 for a month supply. So a very affordable $45 a month. At 59 and still involved in competitive sports this might be worth a try.
As I replied elsewhere, the concern is if you are getting the same quality NAC as the trial used. Ofc, we have that concern paying 10X that price, too!
I'll throw in a complete amino acid supplement which should cover the "patented formulation" contained in Celltrient. Might bring it to $100 a month. Who knows, right?
Since these supplements are available individually and are fairly cheap, it should be easy to try. About $70 a month I think. If the results are as advertised a couple of months should answer the question for anyone inclined to give it a go.
My concern is, "Why is the big bulk bag of NAC priced at 10-20% the cost of higher end supplement makers?" Maybe it's the same exact stuff. Maybe it is some batches, not others. Maybe it never is. I'm not aware of the agencies who test supplements (themselves not always 100% reliable) running tests on the makers of NAC. But it makes me nervous taking such huge doses of something at a discount rate!
My first thoughts are telomeres and circadian rhythm.