[extropy-chat] where to go with supplementation in a post-Nick-Lane world ?

[Ensel Sharon]

I'm going to abandon, somewhat, my original thread/question as I am
interested in where this is going...


On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Robert Bradbury wrote:

> > What do you think about metformin?
> 
> It has merit but I haven't studied exactly how it works.  If it is acting by
> limiting cellular glucose uptake then I would wonder the extent to which
> cells will switch to fat metabolism.  That isn't going to help if the goal
> is to reduce oxygen consumption.


Is that the goal ?  Is the goal an absolute reduction in oxygen
consumption ?  Or is it a reduction in oxygen consumption relative to
supply ?  Scientists dealing with longevity and the antioxidant theory of
aging, etc., speak of an "athlete paradox" wherein high levels of fitness
and athletic output seem to prolong longevity, and yet it is clear that
there is a quite marked increase in oxygen use.

The book I mentioned speaks of oxygen traveling through the respiratory
chains of mitochondria, and becoming "backed up" (for lack of a better
term, and for lack of a deeper understaning on my part) because no further
ATP (or heat) is needed, and it is there, in the mitochondria that the
free radicals "leak".

Further, it is there, in unprotected (relative to nucleic) mitochondrial
DNA that the free radicals do their damage.  The nucleus, it would seem,
has a fair amount of protection against both free radical damage and copy
errors (again, relative to mito DNA) ...


> It is the delivery of the free electron from CoQ10 to O2 which creates the
> superoxide which in turn becomes the hydrogen peroxide which can diffuse to
> the nucleus where it becomes a trouble maker.  Remove either of the two
> upstream actors (CoQ10 or O2) and you remove the source of the problem.


... and so perhaps this line of thought will not be as benefical as you
think, because if this new wrinkle in the antiox theory of aging bears any
fruit, it is not nucleic DNA that you need to worry about as much as mito
DNA.

Which kind of goes back to my original question:  if you are abreast of
these developments (which may in fact be completely
wrong/broken/etc./dontshootthemessenger), are they causing you to rethink
the entire "supplement anti-ox to prevent nucleic free-rad damage" ?

It would seem not.