The Interventions Testing Program Finds Glycine Supplementation has a Tiny Effect on Mouse Life Span

The NIA Interventions Testing Program (ITP) is a very conservative organization. The organizers take compounds that cannot possibly do more than slightly slow aging, largely those that upregulate stress response mechanisms in a similar way to calorie restriction, and rigorously test them in large mouse studies. The results are of the best quality, and tend to demonstrate that most earlier, less rigorous studies overestimated the effects of compounds on life span. This is an expensive business, but I would say one of dubious practical value.

The practice of calorie restriction shows us the likely bounds of the possible when it comes to upregulating stress responses in humans. It is not the road to large increases in human life span; calorie restriction, while improving health noticeable, doesn't add more than a few years to life span in our species. This is despite extending mouse life span by up to 40%. Upregulation of stress responses has evolved to have a much larger effect on life span in short-lived species. So when we see results in mice on the order of 5% extension of life span in the ITP study noted here, one can expect it to have absolutely no detectable result at all in humans.

The NIA Interventions Testing Program (ITP) has to date reported on four drugs with consistent major effects on mouse lifespan in one or both sexes and found evidence for significant but less dramatic effect of four other drugs. Rapamycin, started at 9 months of age, was found to increase median lifespan by as much as 26% in females and 23% in males. Acarbose can lead to an increase of 22% in median lifespan in male mice, and to a significant, but smaller, 5% increase in female mice. A third drug, 17-α-estradiol (17aE2), a nonfeminizing congener of the well-known estrogen 17-β-estradiol, increases lifespan of male mice by 19%. Lastly, NDGA (nordihydroguaiaretic acid) has been shown to increase lifespan of male mice only, with an increase of 12% in median lifespan. Of the other agents tested so far by the ITP, four (methylene blue, aspirin, Protandim, and green tea extract [GTE]) provided some evidence for possible health benefits.

Diets low in the amino acid methionine have been shown to extend median and maximum lifespan in rats. Glycine plays a special role in methionine metabolism, serving as the only acceptor for methyl groups, through action of glycine-N-methyl transferase (GNMT), the key enzyme in the only pathway for methionine clearance in mammals. Methionine toxicity can be blocked by dietary glycine, consistent with the notion that GNMT is the principal effector of methionine clearance, at least at toxic levels. These data suggest that excess dietary glycine might depress methionine levels and thus mimic some of the benefits of a low methionine diet.

We therefore evaluated the effects of an 8% glycine diet on lifespan and pathology of genetically heterogeneous mice in the context of the Interventions Testing Program. Elevated glycine led to a small (4%-6%) but statistically significant lifespan increase, as well as an increase in maximum lifespan, in both males and females. Pooling across sex, glycine increased lifespan at each of the three independent test sites. Glycine-supplemented females were lighter than controls, but there was no effect on weight in males.



they used glycine to reverse aging human cell lines back in 2015. I find this quite suprising.

Posted by: scott emptage at April 10th, 2019 5:19 AM

@scott emptage
Fixing a duffle cell line in vivo is one thing. Filling out for the whole body with strange pathways is another.

Posted by: Cuberat at April 10th, 2019 5:43 AM

@Cuberat true but I am slightly disappointed with this study

Posted by: scott emptage at April 10th, 2019 8:09 AM

Although glycine supplementation is thought to be generally beneficial and fairly safe, it may be contraindicated for people with certain neurodegenerative diseases. Glycine is elevated in the cerebrospinal fluid in multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and some cases of multiple system atrophy. It may contribute to de-myelination and high CSF levels can be excitotoxic.

Posted by: CD at April 10th, 2019 11:44 AM

"The NIA Interventions Testing Program (ITP) is a very conservative organization" - as appears to be the lead author! I emailed him yesterday, after stumbling across the paper, asking him about the next batch of compounds to be tested. I also mentioned that I was now taking intermittent Rapamycin in advance of giving it to my parents, as the next cohort of mice includes a Phase 2 Intermittent Rapamycin arm.

Maybe not surprisingly, but he warned me against doing so, saying that in his opinion it would be unwise as the potential risks were too great.

I replied that the risk of not taking the risk was even greater! :-)

Posted by: Chris Linnell at April 10th, 2019 12:20 PM

@ Scott, the effects of glycine in the 2015 in vivo study was to supply the glycine that was lacking because of age related epigenetic changes to the relevant nuclear genes. This supply then reversed decline in the electron transport chain. Presumably glycine is important to mitochondria. I find it very interesting that de-differentiation and subsequent re-differentiation also reversed these problems, but that they reliably reoccurred as the cells were passaged and aged again.

Interestingly, ALL land mammals suffer from lack of glycine, the bigger they are, the worse the deficit - and this leads to loss of collagen in connective tissue with age. So I'd say this is possibly a MORE useful supplement in humans than mice, and perhaps given the underwhelming ITP results, might improve health more than lifespan.

I totally agree with Reason that CR shows the limits of the possible with metabolic approaches, but humans probably do benefit more than a few years, it's just that this is not noticeable because even if you are in poor health, modern medicine and care can keep you alive for a similar amount of (miserable) time.

Posted by: Mark at April 11th, 2019 3:54 AM

@Mark do you think glycine could help push median LS up to 100?

Posted by: scott emptage at April 11th, 2019 5:57 AM

@ Scott - It will definitely help with looking and feeling younger; for example I'd be surprised if it doesn't help with arthritis*, so there might be an indirect effect on lifespan.

As for a direct effect due to maintenance of mitochondria - it'd be nice wouldn't it?

*a quick websearch provides some support for this, in vitro atleast (

Posted by: Mark at April 11th, 2019 6:18 AM

@Mark thank you for that useful info. I have seen aecdotes from some people who have self experimented with very large doses of glycine and reported that it has had a profound effect . of course anecdotes don't mean much but its something to add to other stuff

Posted by: scott emptage at April 11th, 2019 9:14 AM

Hi there! Just a 2 cents.

As noted, glycine can definitely help improve your health and increase mitochondrial function, it has multimechanism effects; such as altering lipid composition in mitochondria (it blocks phosphatidylcholine production and increases phosphatidylethanolamine phospholipid), the effect of that is a clear increase in ATP production from mitos, also it produces GSH (tripeptide composed of Glutamate, cysteine and glycine), thus it is restores the redox milieu towards 'reduced'. Because of that, it reduces rising oxidative stress accompanying aging and diseases. Glycine also slightly improves glucose profile/fasting glucose and substantially improves health/fitness. It also reduces LDL somewhat. It is an essential amino acid.

With age, there is a deficiency in it, seen in blood of old, aged donors (over 70) had 50% glycine, 50% cysteine vs young donors..etc..thus a clear production deficiency by faulty intake/production of glycine/cysteine with age. This increases a lot the oxidative stress, as the redox will become oxidized, for these are precursors for the production of GSH, thus an oxidized GSH:GSSG ratio because of precursor deficiency with aging. Over the years, this means gradual increase in the redox potential (-175mV up to -125mV, approx. +7mV each decade, +50mV over a few decades means an oxidized redox, thus constant oxidative stress daily - over decades, will cause diseases. The GSSG (oxidize glutathione thiol) is the principal cause, and rises with age, it is not recycled anymore to GSH (unoxidized reduced' glutathione); hence, you end up with a lack of GSH and an accumulation of GSSG; oxidized milieu (a haven for cancer, atherosclerosis, serious diseases, and also, premature aging - dying earlier than your max, your epigenetic clock will accelerate - for the redox and epigenome are in concert talk: redox drifting/homeostasis loss/oxidizing = epigenomic drifting/acceleration of epiclock alteration 'advancement' (mainly CpG-rich island become hypermethylated (gene pockets responsable of inflammatory genes (TNFa, IL6, C-Reactive, p53, etc), while the CpG-poor islands become demethylated (the anti-inflammatory/detoxification/antioxidant genes).

I wouldn't say that glycine is a miracle cure or that it can make you live to a 100, but it can Definitely increase your chances - 100% certain, for it restores health, and healthspan is key and important, to reach a longer longevity; with that said, there are many shades of gray there (it's not because 'healthy' you live's due to other factors, such mTOR/Insulin/DAF/SIR/CR/autophagy and so forth).

I also suggest Leucine, it is only amino acid that signal beta-cells to produce insuline; it dramatically reduces LDL/total cholesterol and reverses partially atherosclerosis (had I known that long ago, I would have taken Leucine...I took it..except I took it with other aminos that contributed to atheroscleroris, certain aminos are PRO-atherosclerosis Glutamine/Glutamate (and excitatory amino acid for excitatory neuron, but too much glutamate kills neuron of excitoxicity. It's kind of a 2-face for your need it for 'sharpness' of neuron and 'excitation' of them..but too much of it is like bad drugs, it destroys neuron. Also, it increases LDL concentration, increases atherosclerotics lesion and makes plaques grow in arteries. I took whey and whatever protein supplement...for a long time thinking this was good - no. Protein increase atherosclerosis in large doses (mostly due to excess methionine, carnitine, glutamine..all these very pro-atherogenic and increase homocysteine (disease causing) while reducing cysteine). You need, specifically, Anti-atherosclerotic amino acids, such as, Leucine, isoleucine, valine, taurine, cysteine and glycine. The most effective of the bunch are Leucine for atherosclerosis and glycine for oxidative stress reduction. The fact is, GSH is produced from Glycine, Cysteine and Glutamate/Glutamine (and also, in part, methionine)...but glutamine is pro-atherosclerotis it's a 2-faced need to only supplement Leucine, Glycine and Cysteine, this way you avoid excess glutamate. You can throw isoleucine, valine, threonine and taurine in that for better result. But carnitine, methionine and glutamine are very Double-edged sword and must avoid.

Whey/protein supplements do not discriminate between PRO and ANTI atherogenic amino acids, as such you still get the dangers of them 'all mixed in on'.

It's why you must consume protein (if excluding vegetable protein food source) as single 'alone/individual' supplements; pick them, specifically, and ONLY them (if you add up the others, all the benefits are Completey nullified). It's why studies on amino acids are very interesting and paradoxal : they show that an Individual/Single Amino Acid Alone as much More positive effect if it is an amino acid that is protective VS consuming a bunch of mixed ones (of bad and good).

Also, they compared Leucine vs Glycine vs Leucine + Glycine...and it was clear that Glycine alone was more effective at increase oxidative stress resistance and priming the redox; with that said, you want to get both, but for many, it is NOT 'additional' or 'synergistic' can DIMINUTIVE when you combine them. They also saw that the 'final' effect of leucine and glycine was pretty similar, overall, on glucose/fitness improvement...but on oxidative stress Leucine was like 10% improvement, while Glycine, alone, was 16% improvement or so. Thus, a bit more effective, alone. But, if you are talking, specifically, about reduction of atherosclerosis, Leucine was more effective and quicker/faster at reducing plaque size/lesion than glycine...and that's explainable - Leucine activates mTOR - a fitness element, but activating beta-cells in pancreas to Product Insuline...thus improving insulin sensitivity and triggering the whole Insulin cascade protection (insulin has Dramatic effect on atherosclerosis, than just fat intake), that's because insulin triggers mTOR, mTOR triggers mitos and increases PGG-1a/UCP in BAT/WAT tissue around organs..thus you gain muscle, mTOR/insulin = muscle formation, skeletal muscle formation = insulin sensitivity increase (muscles contribute to insulin/glucose homeostasis and why you must stay fit/thin enough not obese with subcutaneous visceral fat = fitness improvement = atherosclerosis reduction/LDL reduction in liver (via LiverX/Farnesylated receptor x, commands stop of LDL and increased LDL efflux, for HDL species production instead, than rising HDL can go and Mop Up the dead macrophages/LDL pockets and plaques around lesions. Plus, macrophage invasion is stopped, for immune system is commanded by HDL to stop inflammation (C-Reactive/Thrombin/Fibrosis/macrophage entry).

Just a 2 cents.

Posted by: CANanonymity at April 11th, 2019 9:38 AM


Are you actively taking Glycine and Leucine? If so, are you taking them together, or staggering them a bit due to the diminishing returns when combined?

Posted by: Ham at April 11th, 2019 10:11 AM

@CANanonymity thanks for that info

Posted by: scott emptage at April 11th, 2019 10:19 AM

Hi Ham! Thanks for asking, yes, mostly staggering them to avoid close combination and obtaining benefit of both, spread over time. The truth is very wary about Any protein, I took cysteine for a long time (NAC supplement/N-acetylcysteine, a GSH precursor)..but it was mixed bag...I stopped it, sometimes I felt it contributed to my decline; with time I learned that you Really need to let your 'body decide of itself' - your body, for Your body..knows what your body needs or not. Custom fit, for every person; it's why it make work in some, or fail in others, it depends on so many variables; maybe at that previous 'late advanced stage' point of hte disease, I was non responding and now, it was Actually Detrimental to me; and far more, positive, to just not take it and concentrate on the HDL/LDL cholestero ratio. I've read studies where they saw improvement by NAC/Cysteine, then other studies said, no improvement or ever acceleration of inflammation/disease; it's all over the place. Overall, there is more good to consuming it - because it is, after all, a building block of the redox GSH (Cysteine + Glycine + Glutamin = GSH); with age, we Do have a deficiency of it; so my recommendation (just a 2 c), is dose it and see how much it does or does not improve anything; it might Keep you healthy (if you are Already healthy), and that is the most important, with age. Certain antioxidants, like NAC/cysteine sulfur thiols, can 'behave wrong' 'rogue' and contribute to diseaase's so finnicky and even sometime 2-faced, depending on the 'health state' of the person and their currect 'redox milieu' in plasma etc.
Thus, an Ultra-Balance, that even Micro-changes, can have massive lasting impact/changes, for the worse. And, why, I say that Your body, is Better at deciding Waht is That balance, for you. When I stopped 99% of what I did, supplement, body responded better and was 'allowed' (if you will) 'to decide' what was going to happen; I had to 'help it' of course (like stopiing ingestion of bad food), but, it's my body that saw these changes and 'Acted' accordingly to them; all - the body. So, just to end, Glycine is definitely a great supplement (one of the best), and Leucine another great one (for fitness/muscle/healht improvement/atheroslcerosis reversal)..but, like anythnig, dose it, don'T over do it (excess glycine, excess leucine, are a thing and will cause their problems too). To mitigate the dimunitive return from their immediate combination, spacing them as taken alone/spread over time between each one is best (than just completely avoiding one of the two entierly; even if you take Only Glycine or Only Leucine, you still get Most benefits as they both work in same pathways and Do Overlap; but, each, as more specific capacity (Leucine/atherosclerosis/Insulin; while, Glycine/oxidative stress/redox).

Hi Scott! You're welcome!

Just a 2 cents.

Posted by: CANanonymity at April 11th, 2019 11:18 AM


How often are you taking them?

Posted by: Ham at April 11th, 2019 3:44 PM

Rere Every week, spaced, I try to alternate, one day glycine, one day leucine, sometimes I forget and kind of might miss a day or two; or like it depends on availability of product, I might just stick and then add back the 2nd one (money tight); but it's like doing a roll if you will so by alternating you never get them together -at sametime/same day', while still getting them both, once every other day. I'm not sure if this really stopping body mixing of both, most likely not, and may need more like 1 week - just glycine, 1 week - leucine, etc...or maybe, even one 1 week of nothing, and then back on the one of the two to separate them more/sparse them farther. Amino acids are consumed pretty quickly, it's why I believe it is important to not go for a full week of just one of the two; by staying with 1-day per each, it is better and thus 15 days glycine + 15 days leucine; 6months glycine, 6months leucine; but because you are continuously alternating one day to the next, you do not deprive your body of neither for a long time. If you had to just take 1, I would say it is depending on your health (if atherosclerosis..better go with leucine); othweise, if healthy enough, glycine is better choice (if only using 1 only, one only of whichever, will Still give you benefits; combination is just a little extra - but for specific effect, each is better at something. So if taken alone, they should be taken for the specific/speciality effect rather than overall health effect). Because both are good and needed, they will most likely not help that much more than either alone (if excluding their specific effect), thus you can consume just one...but, the alternating is good solutoin to obtain both and not diminish their power when combined together to close.

Posted by: CANanonymity at April 11th, 2019 4:48 PM

Do you think it might make sense to do something like Sun-Tues: Glycine, Wed: Nothing, Thurs-Sat Leucine? Or maybe alternate each day, with a day off on wed for both? I think I'm in reasonably good health, sans needing to cut back a bit on beer lol. I Go to the gym 5-6 days a week with 20-30 minutes of cardio every day and lifting every other, in addition to what I do at work.

Posted by: Ham at April 11th, 2019 5:31 PM

Because you are healthy overall, and you do lots of exercise, Leucine is best for you, for when combined with exercise, Leucine is more effective; since it is mTOR activator/and exercise too for it increase insulin sensitivty by skeletal muscle formation (via mTOR/IGF). Leucine is potent insulin sensitizer and sensitivitizer, it improves insulin sensitivity, by increasing betacell insulin secretion in pancreas and then this leads to fitness/muscle improvement (mTOR). The Sun-Tes Glycine, skip Wed, and Thurs-Sat Leucine is a good one too; more sparsed, leaving a few days before back on the other. Glycine is best for harder exercice, after, because of oxidative stress due to fatigue/damage to muscle fibers; glycine will mitigate that by reversing the oxidative stress caused by hard exercice, while Leucine will make new muscle formation/replacing them. If you do mild exercice, generally, there is not much oxidative stress, and mostly, a hormesis effect that end up boosting oxidative stress resistance - it's when you go Above that and go to point of exhaustion..that is where there is clear oxidative stress from overexercicing (MDA/TBARS that point,demonstrating oxidative stress after exercice...while low-to-moderate exerice will Lower MDA/TBARS lipid peroxidation; but no more than that, after taht you tax body too much and it shows in blood (Glycine or, less so, Leucine will mitigate that), the benefitial effects of exercice are lost at that point and you do keep fit - except you are aging faster - Excess mTOR (mTOR is a geroconverter to is an antogonistic pleiotropic element only meant for 'fitness'/to make you 'breather/have offpsprings' for specie survival), hence, be fit and sexually capable...but, in the inverse, it kills you over time (by senescence entry of cells via mTOR geroncoversion..low exercise mimics CR (Calorie Restriction) by doing 'hormesis' oxidative stress resistance, this is turn 'doses' mTOR to not go in excess; just enough to make new fibers and then shut off (CR reduces mTOR and reduces senescence; CR is about 'famine/resource drought' to make specie survive with no resources/'s not really about being fit, it's about Reducing your fitness to increase your longevity/more somatic tissue maintenance - resource relocation - and less damage by less calorie intake/less Metabolism end products (At the cost of Less sexual capability/reproduction (CR can affect your offspring ouput and sexual resources (the first thing affected, sexual hormones axis and endocrine resource allocation is regulated by IGF/mTOR)). Exercice, itself, is thus an antogonistic pleiotropic element, when dosed to moderate level; it's meant to keep fit - and To Age, 'healthily'. Exercice can increase telomerase activity, one studied showed that active/exerciced people have about 500 base pairs extra in their telomeric DNA vs sedentary nonexercising people; thus telomerase is activated by exercice (telomerase is antagonistic pleiotropic element too; it's meant to keep fit, but one study showed when overactived it contributes to epigenetic advancement on the epiclock, thus contribute to 'aging'/accumulation of methylomic alterations (just like in aging, there is a Cap to how much alterations you can get into methylome before is 'unworkable' anymore/hence, death because these epigenetic alterations create Epigenetic Drifting/Transcriptional unsilencing/disrupting/Splicing errors/Mutations creations/Homeostasis loss, when the epigenome is just no longer capable of 'bouncing back' to a state of 'keeping it all together' (leading stocastic dysfunction) - despite that telomerase repairs damages and makes taller telomeres; and why telomerase does not stop Mice from dying, they have much telomerase activity even so and have 40kb telomeres, double ours; but they accrue so much oxidative stress and consume much less ROS/much less detoxification/ROS consumption than us; so their redox is wack in no time; hence, the whole system fails - before it evens gets a chance - to 'live it's maximum' (mice die before their time/they could reach 8 years like white-footed mouse or even 35 years like naked mole rat... while humans, it's the inverse - we push to the Max Max..and you time, it's the max.. and it ends).

Posted by: CANanonymity at April 11th, 2019 8:50 PM

I very much doubt exercise extends telomeres, CANanonymity. I doubt they've done a longitidinal study - most likely exercise makes you lose telomeres slower - so it appears compared to others that they've got longer.

Reason posted a paper here a while back showing ROS damages telomeres independent of telomere shortening and that this can lead to cellular senescence even in post mitotic cells. This makes sense when you consider that telomeres have no DNA repair mechanism. And also explains mice - they need lots of cellular renewal capacity so have long telomeres(live fast) but also very high ROS production (die young), which means rapid telomere shortening but also lots of direct telomere damage and senescence through ROS.

Of course humans don't have anywhere near the same level of ROS, and our telomeres are shorter so less vulnerable but the same process goes on in slow motion. Hence Senolytics should still work in humans, but as we've much shorter telomeres we have less renewal capacity, especially in post mitotic tissues, so ideally we'd have say an injection of induced pluripotent cells just after Senolytics, which should locate to the areas that require it. Alternatively maybe a mRNA telomerase delivery could also do the job. That in my mind would constitute SENS1.0 and cause real rejuvenation of some unknown amount of years.

Posted by: Mark at April 12th, 2019 3:06 AM

Hi Mark! Just a 2 cents.

Thanks for that. In certain tissues/cells there is activation of telomerase after a stronger bout of training and in a sustained time; like over 3 months, the 'overal' levels of telomerase are higher; this translates as 'slowing to telomere erosion', the telomere are lengthned by telomerase...but if it's truly 'increasing' more than at base value I'm not sure...meaning it would stave off, as you said, speed of telomere erosion; it's why we would think that exercised vs sedentary non-exercising people show differences in telomeres size (exercised people have taller telomeres...simply by telomerase slowing down their erosion as it erodes 'adding up telomeric DNA' at same time..while unexercised people just continued the process and months later have smaller telomeres). But, at the base, telomerase extends telomeres; it's just, as you said, the process of telomere shrinking (about 50bp/year) continues it's whatever extra telomeric DNA telomerase adds it just makes the shrinking less apparent by adding more telomeric DNA - but the rate of shrinking is nearly the same. It's just that 'extra' added.

I wait that mRNA telomerase therapy, Bioviva is the only one (Mrs.Parrish) that did that so far with her hTERT telomerase done on herself..but gone don't know, what's going on with this anymore. SENS wanted to remove telomerase/telomere elongation (via WILT), I am not sure they are too fund of telomerase therapy, when they wanted to block it completely. Since, telomerase, hijacked by them, gives cancerous cells their replicative power (excluding ALT cancers whom found 'another way' to get by/survive without telomerase).

1. High-intensity interval training activates telomerase and reduces p53 expression

2. Physical Exercise Prevents Cellular Senescence in Circulating Leukocytes and in the Vessel Wall

Just a 2 cents.

Posted by: CANanonymity at April 12th, 2019 1:26 PM


Thanks for your information about Leucine, Glycine and mTOR in the context of exercise.
I'm 64 and still pumping iron 5 times a week. The only supplement for the gym I take is BCAA which has a content of 45% Leucine. If I understand you right I'm killing myself (aging) faster due to excess mTOR, even though people telling me I'm in better shape and health condition than many people in their 30s and 40s. Although, if someone has a closer look at my hands and neck they can guess my chronological age.

I also practice fasting and intermittent fasting, without knowing that it can reduce mTOR. Just want to mention that I'm going to take Fisetin as soon as shipment has arrived.

Do you think that fasting and Fisetin can counterbalance my rigorous exercise routines in terms of aging?

Posted by: Stephan at April 12th, 2019 9:33 PM

CANanonymity - mRNA would be far more effective at elongating telomeres than even HTERT delivered by a virus like Liz Parrish did. They've done it very effectively in vitro, but I always thought it would be difficult to do in Vivo as mRNA does not survive in the body for long - until I heard about Oisin's technology.

Then again, injecting iPSCs might be better because you're also resetting the methylation clock.

Posted by: Mark at April 13th, 2019 3:35 AM

I wouldn't expect glycine alone to do much good. With NAC you can maybe boost levels of glutathione but unless you're exercising or eating anything with sulforaphane or exposing yourself to extreme heat or cold or other NRF2 activators, you're not going to get much out of glutathione as these are what's required to make any NAC and glycine supplementation useful.

How much do glutathione levels decline in aging? Is declining levels part of the problem?

Posted by: Nathan at April 15th, 2019 2:56 PM

@Nathan depends what dosage

Posted by: scott emptage at April 15th, 2019 4:18 PM

CANanonymity, why do you say "just a 2 cents" in almost every response that you give? It's the cringiest and most awful way of communicating, to constantly be repeating that phrase, even over an online medium.

It's an entirely useless filler phrase that basically means "these are just my thoughts". Yeah, no shit? that's kind of obvious from the context of anything you or anyone else here writes.

You can do whatever you want, but I'm just letting you know just makes you come across as extremely incompetent and socially awkward with that style of talking.

You also need to work on your english grammar. You walls of text are painful to read because many sentences are not grammatically correct.

I don't mean this in a negative way to insult you either. I'm genuinely trying to help you come across as a bit more professional and understandable to everyone reading. Your choices of words and the way you string your sentences and incomplete sentences together makes it really difficult to understand you. Your "2 cents" would be a lot more useful and productive to a lot more people if it was more legible. Take some english grammar courses or training. It will be extremely useful to you in your life.

Posted by: Alan at April 18th, 2019 10:01 PM

I take glycine high dose I can say that that the improvement in health and energy!!! Are profound !!! For once we have a compound that works better in humans then mice or rats ,as it's normally the other way around

Posted by: John Mcdonald at May 6th, 2019 1:46 PM

@John Mcdonald I saw your posts when that japan study was published. how has glycine helped your appearance?

Posted by: scott emptage at May 15th, 2019 5:13 PM

Reply to Scott I would say yes for sure

Posted by: John A McDonald at June 5th, 2019 8:29 AM

@John A McDonald how much are you taking? any side effects?

Posted by: scott emptage at June 6th, 2019 4:26 PM

I was taking a lot after reading the Hayashi, paper 2015 ( self testing )( one of the most important papers in biology to date / the dose was oral between 60g to 80 g per day it's the energy over time you recover the energy of your youth, less sleep but still feeling rested, bags under your eyes disappear ,wrinkles as well // I said to my friend it's like I'm about to jump down the rabbit hole lets see where I lands I never did hit the bottom so the improvements to my health just kept getting better and better / but the big thing is that before we thought aging was something we could not influence unless we were starving ourselves, now we know the if we just give the cell what it needs and if the cell happens to have a transporter like it douse for glycine m the adventure continues :-)

Posted by: reply to scott by john mcdonald at June 14th, 2019 4:59 PM

John, may I ask, are you actually taking 60 to 80 grams a day? Thank for your informative posts.

Posted by: Laura at June 15th, 2019 10:21 PM

answer to Laura,
yes I did for two years , but I found it getting harder to take as it's like trying to eat anything every day for two years you get tried of it//((slight aftertaste and stomach upset)) in this large dose 20-30 grams x3 each day / so I now put it in capsules, and take less/it works no upset stomach / also with my self experiment / I wandered to see what happened when I lowered the dose/ the range I was taking was .08 grams per kg is the dose for anti psychotic treatment so there were people taking this amount / but from what I understand they had the same difficulty I was facing it just gets hard to take such large doses over time I set up a face book page just to show the science glyugenetics at Facebook I felt in the end that 40-60 gr per day optimal I really felt that at 40 g per day you were keeping the aging clock stopped at 60 you were what I call un aging but you are un aging at the same rate you age but in reverse

Posted by: john mcdonald at June 17th, 2019 11:07 AM

@john mcdonald so you think the hayashi paper could work in a whole human body? given the right dosage?

Posted by: scott emptage at June 19th, 2019 8:30 AM

@john mcdonald just ran across your facebook page. I am also surprised that nobody has followed up on this vital discovery. I showed a friend who is in the field of aging research the paper and he said it was "old news". why are people dismissing this? the paper clearly states that they turned 97 year old human cell lines into much younger ones by restoring mito respiration. there is also belief that restoring mitochondria could also cause whole body age reversal. this study needs more attention as it could be a huge breakthrough. I'm grateful that there are people like yourself who are prepared to risk your own health to test this youreslef.

Posted by: scott emptage at June 19th, 2019 10:39 AM

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.