Coles and Harris' CoQ10 Study (was Re: A4M Discussion)

Brian Manning Delaney bmdelane at
Fri Mar 3 00:47:22 EST 1995

In article <3j2j1u$5ra at> brauchfu at (Brian Rauchfuss - PCD) wrote, among other things:
>In article <D4pwD5.1tp at>,
>Brian Manning Delaney <bmdelane at> wrote:
>:diff. levels of activity seen between the two groups. But my main
>:point was that "youthification" may not always mean a longer life
>:span, in part because the symptoms of aging could be protective in
>:some way. Ex: some (but not all) studies have shown declining levels
>:of CoQ w/age in rats. Maybe the slower metabolism this produces
>:actually slows aging (lower consequent rate of free-rad. production,
>If this was true then the CoQ rats should have had a shorter maximum
>life-span than the controls....

Only if it were true AND there were no other effects of CoQ.

>... but they did not (I gather from your 
>report).  Since the CoQ rats had a longer average life-span, but the
>same maximum, it sounds like CoQ is all positive in regards to preventing
>early death, but does not effect the overall life-limiting

There are two thing sto explain: 1) the delay in onset of cancer; and
2) the apparently "youthful" nature of the very old surviving CoQ
rodents compared w/controls, coupled w/no extension in max. life span.

If you eliminate the rodents who die from cancer, you get a bunch of
controls and a bunch of exp. animals all of which die at essentially
the same age. But there is a dramatic diff. in fur thickness,
incidence of hip dysplasia, etc., that make the CoQ animals seem much
younger than the controsl.  (Unfort'ly, Harris and Coles didn't do any
lab work other than the quick autopsies, so we have no other data.) So
I'd say this means that there are effects on life-limiting mechanisms,
but that, in this experiment at least, some are negative, and some are
positive. (If that's what you mean by "overall.." then I agree.)

But, of course, this is making a lot out of just one small study.
Still, I think the concern I'm voicing here is one to keep in mind
when assessing the "vitality-enhancing" products pushed by many so-
called life-extension companies. Human growth hormone- and
testosterone-replacement, for ex., both seem rather risky, in part for
this reason (tho' there are other reasons to avoid these two hormones
in particular).

Brian M. Delaney <b-delaney at> [DO NOT cc: articles to me.]
<bmdelane at> [Wrists: "Leave unambiguous typos."]
Note: All statements in this article are in jest; they are not
statements of fact. * "Mein Genie ist in meinen Nuestern." -Nietzsche.

More information about the Ageing mailing list