No one seems to be responding to your post, so I will take a stab at it.
Ellis Toussier wrote:
>> I am a 52 year old male, thin, in good health, and interested
> in rejuvenation (if possible) and life extension in good health
> (which seems entirely possible.)
With this, I agree.
> From what I have read on the
> Internet in various places, I decided to start taking growth
> hormone
IMO, unless you have already done them (which you show below that you
have not), there are many other aspects of your life which you should
analyze and possibly modify first in order to optimize your health and
potential longevity. I prioritize them in the following order:
1. Diet (ie standard whole foods).
2. Exercise (stretching, weight work, and aerobics)
3. Supplements of "well studied" vitamins, minerals and others.
4. Supplements of "promotors" of beneficial systemically produced
chemicals which decline with age.
5. Direct augmentation of such chemicals in a manner consistent with the
body's physiology.
6. Other direct augmentation of such chemicals.
7. Supplementation of chemicals not in food, not produced by the body,
and not closely related to such.
> at the rate of about 6 i.u. per week, which seems to be
> a conservative amount to begin with, and which I might change
> after monitoring blood samples, etc.
I classify use of GH directly as something in category 6 above. It is
not currently possible to take it in the physiological manner in which
the body produces it. Although, with small doses this is problem not
going to cause any negative effects.
> I have also read many articles referring to DHEA and melatonin,
> so I am interested in taking these also.
IMO, these are in category 5 above and should have been tried *before*
GH.
> I have read that
> melatonin is very good to avoid free-radical damage in the brain,
It is also a potent anticancer product among many, many other benefits.
> and of course I am interested in living longer with a functioning
> brain. And I have read that DHEA is also quite wonderful, etc.
Far less well studied and more controversial than melatonin, but yes, I
believe it is important for any male over 40 to supplement to youthful
serum levels (of both DHEA and DHEAS).
> But... I have tremendous fear that taking synthetic or supplemental
> hormones might unbalance my natural hormone production.
I think you should fear that (if at all) just as much or more for GH.
> If anybody can
> comment on this, I would be interested in reading your comments.
Both melatonin and DHEA supplements are, I believe, identical with the
chemical manufactured by the body. In both cases, there are certainly
feedback mechanisms which may reduce the body's production (and thereby
waste some of what you are consuming). However, although there may be
some, I can't think of a single instance where the body's production of
anything become "atrophied" (and thus not restartable) because of
copious exogenous available amounts. If you are thinking of "balance" as
between different body chemicals, there are also general feedback
mechanisms which cover most things there also except for wild
overdosing. DHEA should be well regulation with respect to balancing
through the multitudinous pathways of the adrenal cortex (where it is
naturally produced and is a precursor to many other chemicals) and
downstream cellular metabolites. Melatonin is the end product of a chain
which normally begins with tryptophan. It is taken up by all tissues and
is rapidly metabolized and eliminated.
> Secondly, I have not seen many posts at all on this board, which
> is one of the best anywhere, referring to EDTA chelation therapy.
That is because most people appear to consider it to be dangerous except
when needed for rescue from heavy metal poisoning. BTW, I would place
EDTA in category 7 above.
> EDTA
> chelation therapy is a process which is done to remove lead and other
> bad metals from the blood and the brain. It is supposed to be the
> standard and best treatment for this. There are a lot of claims that it
> also helps heart patients by cleaning up their circulatory system, but I
> don't want to list the pros and cons of that because it is not to the
> point.
I think that there may be better methods to accomplish such "clean-up"
(and I don't mean by "reaming" the arteries).
> My question is: why hasn't somebody tried this for the
> only purpose of cleaning up their blood and brain of lead, even if it is
> not for a case of "lead poisoning"... I am certain that even a little
> bit of lead and mercury in my blood and brain is not good, so why do I
> have to wait to be diagnosed with an extreme case of lead or mercury
> poisoning?
This is a good question. However, there are many things such as this
which have not been studied. Personally, I do take 100-200 mg of EDTA
daily (in a garlic capsule from LEF) just for such a purpose.
> And I'm positive that in 52 years of living in
> contamination, I must have a lot of lead and perhaps mercury and
> cadmium, maybe even DDT, etc. and other junk in my body.
I don't think the EDTA will do anything for the DDT. I think it works
only for metals.
> So what are your comments if I want to have EDTA chelation therapy
> just for the purpose of extending my life and my brain? Am I crazy, or
> am I right?
Neither. The idea is credible, but the scientific evidence is not there
yet.
If you try it, remember that is will remove all metals mot just the ones
which you are "aiming" at. Therefore, you should probably take some
mineral supplements.
> You can find many articles referring to EDTA chelation therapy by making
> a search on any search engine for "edta, chelation, chelation therapy"
Yes, I have done this on medline several times before (and just now).
> I am also very interested in protecting my brain from getting to the
> state in which my father was, when he died at age 93. He did not have
> Alzheimer's, but he didn't have any memory either... I have read that
> the brain starts to lose the amount of dopamine it makes after age 40
I don't think it is at all that "absolute".
> (everything seems to happen after age 40...)
Not to me, I am 60 and have little noticable decline.
> After your brain has lost
> 80% of its dopamine production, you are a certified victim of
> Parkinson's desease.
Not everyone gets Parkinson's. The French woman who just died at 122?
did not have it.
> Then they start to give you a medicine called
> Deprenyl,
Which I would consider to be in category 7 above.
> which avoids or slows down further loss of whatever it is that
> produces the dopamine. So why should I wait? If everybody loses their
> ability to produce dopamine in their brain, am I crazy to want to take
> Deprenyl BEFORE I lose 60% of it, even if I am not diagnosed as having
> Parkinson's, now or ever?
IMO, there are antiaging benefits to supplementing deprenyl (start out
at 1 mg per day and work up to 2 mg per day as you get older), but not
everyone agrees with this. However, there are many less controversial
brain antiaging supplements which should come first (in category 3
above). A number of these are contained in a product available from LEF
called "Cognitex".
> I don't even know what dopamine is necessary
> for, and I'm not sure anybody knows exactly what it does, but if you
> ain't got it, you ain't got it, and you wish you did!
These are critical decisions. You need to study more how these chemicals
are produced and what they do before you start gobbling controversial
pills.
--Tom
Tom Matthews
The LIFE EXTENSION FOUNDATION - http://www.lef.org - 800-544-4440
A non-profit membership organization dedicated to the extension
of the healthy human lifespan through ground breaking research,
innovative ideas and practical methods.
LIFE EXTENSION MAGAZINE - The ultimate source for new
health and medical findings from around the world.
