X-Message-Number: 8372
Subject: Re: #8368 (12'th update on fly...)
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 1997 10:54:47 -0500
From: Will Dye <>
Too bad about the Great Sage Massacre. I agree with the decision
to focus on bactericides. I worry a bit that this will open up
an avenue for criticism that the subsequent experiments are not
being run on "normal" flies, but such criticisms would miss the
point. If you find ANY repeatable regimen that reliably extends
fruit fly life, it will be a good finding. From there, we can
start to break down how the regimen works (e.g. anti-aging vs.
reducing infant mortality, etc.).
That brings up an interesting point, though. When I saw Doug's
original numbers...
Third Run Survival
Supplement DAY 17 DAY 36 DAY 48
Control 64% 14% 0%
Activated charcoal 87 31 15
Amchoor 73 42 8
Angelica 56 18 0
Anise 45 43 19
Bay 69 0 0
Beet 62 0 0
Betaine HCL 82 27 0
Carrot 40 0 0
Celery seed 90 0 0
Citrus bioflavonoids 65 5 0
Comfrey 88 0 0
Dill seed 82 0 0
Green pea 76 8 0
Hydroxycitric acid 47 0 0
Kelp 64 7 12
Malt 83 34 18
Melatonin 54 31 6
Melatonin 2X 70 29 6
Melatonin 4X 65 6 0
Nicotinamide 6X 28 0 0
Paprika 69 43 29
Para-aminobenzoic acid 82 17 11
Purple yam 92 58 8
Rosehip 88 6 6
Sage 66 19 7
Sage 2X 67 0 0
Sage 4X 94 0 0
Silica 88 7 0
Spinach 40 20 0
Tumerin 84 0 0
...I quickly just skimmed the last column, looking for the biggest
numbers. In my head I thought "big numbers = possible anti-aging".
But as Doug points out with his discussion of "anti-bacterial" vs.
"anti-aging" effects, it's quite possible that early survival was
due to one effect, and later survival was due to another. That's
why I should also be thinking about the __rate__ at which the flies
are dying off.
Paprika has an impressive 29% alive since day 1, so I barely
noticed Rosehip, limping along at 6%. But if I look only at the
survival rates in later life (between day 36 and day 48), Rosehip
had a 100% survival rate, compared to (um... I hope I'm doing
this right... 29/43 * 100... carry the one...) 67% for Paprika.
OK, so the Rosehip sample was too small to be reliable, but the
point is that I'm not looking at the numbers as carefully as I
should.
Firing up a little spreadsheet, the late-life results are:
(Warning Will Robinson! Probable typo's ahead!)
Day Day
Supplement 36 48
------------------- ---- ----
Control 100% 0%
Activated charcoal 100 48
Amchoor 100 19
Angelica 100 0
Anise 100 44
Bay - - (not tested)
Beet - - (not tested)
Betaine HCL 100 0
Carrot - - (not tested)
Celery seed - - (not tested)
Citrus bioflavonoids 100 0
Comfrey - - (not tested)
Dill seed - - (not tested)
Green pea 100 0
Hydroxycitric acid - - (not tested)
Kelp 100 171
Malt 100 53
Melatonin 100 19
Melatonin 2X 100 21
Melatonin 4X 100 0
Nicotinamide 6X - - (not tested)
Paprika 100 67
Para-aminobenzoic acid 100 65
Purple yam 100 14
Rosehip 100 100
Sage 100 37
Sage 2X - - (not tested)
Sage 4X - - (not tested)
Silica 100 0
Spinach 100 0
Tumerin - - (not tested)
Obviously I'm not trying to make Doug's life more difficult. A
truly good anti-aging agent (extendable all the way up to humans)
would probably be beneficial in both early and late life. But
the discussion of "antibacterial" vs. true "anti-aging" has me
thinking about survival rate dropoff, as well as overall survival
rate, and I suppose that is a good thing.
Anyway, keep up the good work, Doug.
--Will
P.S. I saw a brief segment on longevity on the Discovery Channel
over the weekend. They mentioned a researcher (I forget her name)
in San Francisco who has had good results extending the life of
nematodes. Does anyone know if her research is available on the
net? Maybe her results could be tried on Doug's flies (if they
aren't already).
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8372