Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Medical Turning back the clock on aging muscles.

  1. Oct 1, 2009 #1


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    This is some compelling new research...
    "A study led by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, has identified critical biochemical pathways linked to the aging of human muscle. By manipulating these pathways, the researchers were able to turn back the clock on old human muscle, restoring its ability to repair and rebuild itself." http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-news-1/Scientists-discover-clues-to-what-makes-human-muscle-age-10175-1/" [Broken]
    "The research also found evidence that aging muscles need to be kept in shape, because long periods of atrophy are more challenging to overcome." http://www.livescience.com/health/090930-aging-muscles.html" [Broken]

    This research was led by scientists at http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/09/30_muscle.shtml" [Broken].
    and recently published in the journal, http://www.embomolmed.org/details/j...rejuvenation_of_human_muscle_stem_cells.html"
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 1, 2009 #2
  4. Oct 6, 2009 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Interesting link, Ouabache. Are they planning to bring something to market out of the research? I couldn't tell with a quick scan.

    Proton -- I didn't know that about creatine. Do you use it as part of your workout/nutrition regimen? What kind, and how much?
  5. Oct 6, 2009 #4
    oh, yeah, there's a ton of papers you can find on it at pubmed. i use 5g/day of creatine monohydrate. other varieties are simply hype because the old-fashion mono is dirt cheap.

    and i keep meaning to check back and do some more research on this thread topic. there are a couple of other things that may be useful for older people. one is anti-inflammatories like ibuprofen. there was a study that showed taking an entire day's recommended dose in one bolus inhibited protein synthesis in muscle, but another showed that older men that took it ad lib. according to the bottle directions actually improved their strength performance. what i want to know is whether the reduced pain simply encourages more effort towards training, or if there is a link between inflammation and the formation of scar tissue in muscle that is mentioned in the article. another thing is vitamin D, which reduces falls in the elderly.

    you may also want to look into fish oil if you're not already doing so. the number of things in the body that it makes better is just amazing.
  6. Oct 9, 2009 #5
    Just a foot note on creatine.

    Work your body to a stall point - that is you hit a plateau where strength increases stop or slow. The conditioned body will respond very well to a short term creatine program along with heavy weight training. It is not intended or recommended for continuous use.
  7. Oct 9, 2009 #6
    why do you think that? and how long does it take you to hit a stall point?
  8. Oct 10, 2009 #7
    I'm not saying that creatine won't provide a benefit to anyone who gives it a try.

    What I am saying is if you are someone who trains a great deal - eventually you will hit a plateau. This is a "stall point" in your development. Often, you'll struggle to maintain the same resistance weight or possibly the number of reps or sets. Some people argue exhaustion/lack of rest and others argue lack of proper nutrition, either way, it does happen.

    This is when creatine really seems to help - in the short term. I've witnessed several cases where creatine was effective.

    I personally went through this when I competed in the discus. I didn't like to lift weights and focused on my form, balance, and agility. Accordingly, I focused my weight training on low reps and sets with the heaviest weights possible. My bench press quickly jumped from 300#'s to 325#'s in about a 9 week period, then it stayed at 325 for about 5 to 6 months and the sets and reps seemed harder and harder to complete. Looking back, I was very discouraged and nearly quit.

    I tried a variety of amino acid supplements and vitamins and tried working different muscle groups and nothing helped. Finally, a strength coach talked me into trying creatine for a few weeks. After about a week I was back on track. Within 3 weeks I was at 350 (we stopped the creatine at that point) and I reached my 400# goal within another 4 to 5 months. From that point, I focused on extra reps and strength maintenance.

    On a side note, my son is currently a high school football player and I won't let him try creatine. My logic is that he hasn't yet hit a legitimate plateau and he's growing like a weed. He doesn't need it and I don't know if it's safe for him at this point.
  9. Oct 10, 2009 #8
    yeah, i know all about plateaus. it took me two years to add about 25 lbs to my bench and 80 lbs to my deadlift. you didn't hit a plateau before because, as you say, you didn't like to do it and didn't take it seriously. wait til you're actually focusing on strength, not agility, and still can't make fast progress.
  10. Jan 21, 2010 #9
    When it comes to creatine you're really trading in your muscles for your endocrine system. If that's acceptable to you (in light of the reasonable fashion you're talking about using it) so be it, but it's not harmless.

    Of course, lots of things break weight-loss/gain/bulking plateaus and it can be VERY hard to tell what is the culprit. I would suggest you hold off on supplements until you run the full gamut with your standard diet. High protein, low protein, etc. If that doesn't work, then consider a kick-start as WhoWee is suggesting. I would listen to the guy who reaizes that giving this to his growing boy is a BAD idea... he's not blowing smoke.
  11. Jan 22, 2010 #10
    what are you trying to say? creatine is not a hormone
  12. Jan 22, 2010 #11
    No it's not, but Creatine is metabolized in the first pass by an enzyme produced by the kidneys, and in the second pass by the liver and pancreas. It's unclear just how the demand of supplementation effects this whole process, but as some people with metabolic disorders, poor kidneys/liver, or who otherwise challenge those organs are effected in the long run.

    You can safely assume that, while it certainly may not be what kills you in the end, it's not doing anything for the specific lifespan of your kidney, liver, or pancreas. Muscles beyond the norm for age/size/etc..., or internal organs... did you think you could have it both ways? lol
  13. Jan 22, 2010 #12
    you have no idea what you are talking about.

    Effect of Short-term High-Dose Creatine Supplementation on Measured GFR in a Young Man With a Single Kidney.
    Gualano B, Ferreira DC, Sapienza MT, Seguro AC, Lancha AH Jr.
    Am J Kidney Dis. 2010 Jan 7. [Epub ahead of print]

    It currently is unknown whether creatine supplementation is safe for people with or at risk of kidney disease. We report on the short-term effects of creatine supplementation on kidney function in a young man with a single kidney and mildly decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR). A 20-year-old man who had undergone unilateral nephrectomy and presented with mildly decreased GFR without kidney damage underwent a trial with 35 days of creatine supplementation (20 g/d for 5 days followed by 5 g/d for the next 30 days) and had his kidney function monitored. After the intervention, (51)Cr-EDTA clearance (pre, 81.6 mL/min/1.73 m(2); post, 82.0 mL/min/1.73 m(2)), proteinuria (protein excretion: pre, 130 mg/d; post, 120 mg/d), and electrolyte levels were unchanged. Albuminuria, serum urea level, and estimated creatinine clearance were decreased (pre, 4.6 mg/d; post, 2.9 mg/d; pre, 37 mg/d; post, 28 mg/dL; and pre, 88 mL/min/1.73 m(2); post, 71 mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively), whereas serum creatinine level was slightly increased (pre, 1.03 mg/dL; post, 1.27 mg/dL), falsely suggesting kidney function impairment. This prospective report suggests that short-term creatine supplementation may not affect kidney function in an individual with a single kidney, mild decreased GFR, and ingesting a high-protein diet (ie, 2.8 g/kg/d). This finding has great relevance considering that creatine-induced kidney disease has been a growing concern, even for healthy people.
  14. Jan 22, 2010 #13
    In short, you see that protein passes in the urine, returns to pre-supplementation levels upon withdrawel, but there is no indication as to potential damage. Especially with a single kidney, this is hardly surprising in a 20 year old man. You won't see risk factors as quickly as you would in an older man, and you're ALREADY going to find protein in his urine that may mask the results of using Creatine. You are in fact the one who is flying blind. Given the role of CPK in predicting renal failure: (John W. McBride; Kingsley R. Labrosse; Harry G. McCoy; David H. Ahrenholz; Lynn D. Solem; Irvin F. Goldenberg JAMA, Feb 1986; 255: 764 - 768.) and myocardial issues: (JAMA Thomas Q. Kong Jr; Charles J. Davidson; Sheridan N. Meyers; Jason T. Tauke; Michele A. Parker; Robert O. Bonow Prognostic Implication of Creatine Kinase Elevation Following Elective Coronary Artery Interventions as well as Arthur J. Siegel; Lawrence M. Silverman; William J. Evans
    Elevated Skeletal Muscle Creatine Kinase MB Isoenzyme Levels in Marathon Runners) and several dozen others.

    The role of Creatine supplementation isn't well understood, because most of the studies are concerned with secondary effects of Creatine metabolism such as hightened levels of the afformentioned CPK, and longitudinal studies are inconclusive. You're burning through a lot of ADP and that dumps a lot of metabolites that must be broken down further, and the Creatine requires the Enzymes I mentioned in my previous post. There are many issues that arise during the use of Creatine supplementation (originally studied for vegitarians actually, not knuckleheads o:) ) including mild and transient proteinuria despite your example.

    The issue isn't that you might be down a kidney for the purposes of filtration, but rather what the kidneys, liver, and pancreas need to produce by way of enzymes, and the resulting metabolites that are still an open question. Open Question vs. Questionable Bodybuilding... Hmmm which side of that health puzzle to fall on. Hmmmm... :uhh:
  15. Jan 22, 2010 #14


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Dear Ouabache,

    I read this on the news the other day:

    http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-jeffry-life18-2010jan18,0,187461.column" [Broken]

    He uses testosterone and human growth hormone since his mid 60's and sticks to a very rigorous exercise regime.

    Quotes from his link:

    My personal approach to stay healthy is through sensible diet, vigorous exercise at the gym, hiking, bicycling, etc... get enough rest, and as best I can to manage the stress in life. It costs Dr Jeffry 1500 $ a month to get human growth hormone and testosterone injections, but he feels it is worth the risk, and so far at least, it appears to be working for him.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  16. Jan 22, 2010 #15
    Note that your approach to aging is likely to give you a longer, healthier life and as liver failure and/or cancer is always a painful way to go, probably a better death. Then again, some people want to live a certain way or not live at all. I simply wish these people were honest about that, lived by that, and didn't try to sell it as "healthy". It may be EFFECTIVE... but it's not going to make you HEALTHIER.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  17. Jan 22, 2010 #16
    seriously, you can stop with the trolling now. i know better. the test they do for heart damage measures a different form of creatine than what athletes use, and different than the kind of creatine you see released from skeletal muscle when it is damaged.

    and there is a recent study about kidney damage in bodybuilders, but it is from steroid abuse.

  18. Jan 22, 2010 #17
    You don't seem to grasp the relationship between one form and another, and how one is produced as a result of the metabolic process. You don't seem to grasp the process that is set into motion from the kidneys, to the liver to the pancreas. That being the case, it's your life, just as it is with old men shooting up "T" and HGH. You get to find things out the hard way I suppose, just as most do. The majority of these studies outside of JAMA and The Lancet are funded exclusively by companies with an interest in pimping these supplements. The questions is: Does Creatine, which is of dubious value and possible harm, provide a worthwhile risk-benefit outcome? Well it certainly does if you're GMC, or a similar company.
  19. Jan 22, 2010 #18
    look, "you don't get it man" is not an argument. when you have some proof, i'm all ears. but you haven't posted any, yet.

    bye waving_smiley.gif
  20. Jan 23, 2010 #19
    There is no proof either way; a point I believe we BOTH started at. As for citations, I do have access to JAMA archives in the relevant areas, but I can't claim to care enough to bother. I suppose I will surrender the rhetorical ground in favour of not caring about your health, or that of others, along with a healthy dose of boredom. I'm not intersted in teaching you about the various metabolic pathways for ADP/ATP and how Creatine can be metabolized. You're the one taking the risk... best of luck to you. Let me know if you ever have a nasty bout of pancreatitis in your late 60's and be a dear hmmm? o:)
  21. Jan 23, 2010 #20
    Generally speaking, no "recreational athlete" has any real need for supplementation with creatine or any other supplements marketed today. Besides most of them being very expensive useless powders, most of the recreation althelthes are nowhere near the point where they cant progress or recover between application of training loads which do have a substantial training effect.

    It's interesting but I see a tendency in gyms that weaklings who can barely squat 1xBW, instead of resorting to a common sense training program tailored for their ability to work / recover , they fill their shelves at home with expensive supplements, and expect those to solve their issues.
  22. Jan 23, 2010 #21
    That was very well said, and truer words have never been spoken. Bodybuilders accept that they're sacrificing some measure of their future (just as many other pro atheletes) for something extraordinary NOW. I choose not to judge that choice, but as you say... if you're just going the normal run of life and staying fit, there's no need to supplent with hormones like that 72 year old man in the article. Nor is there a need to supplement with protein that your body already creates in abundance and for which little proof of efficacy as supplementation exists.

    Forget supplements or not... there is the argument that most people don't NEED a weight-training regimen. MOST people need cardio because they're overweight, and eat a terrible diet. Too often people just want to add things to their diet instead of addressing the basic issues first and foremost. Besides, while I can respect a guy who is utterly ripped, it's not necessarily the way we all should go through life. Healthy, strong, and flexible shouldn't require Creatine, or protein shakes, or even a damned Kashi bar. Just eat sensibly and do a LOT of cardio with some basic isometrics and freeweight (at home) or circuit (at a gym) training 3 or 4 times a week. If a TENTH of the (USA) population did that, we wouldn't be in such a mess. Billions are spent on bulking up in a nation that needs to LOSE the bulk and just get real.

    That said, what I've said is personal opinion and not science related to Creatine. One might argue that it's also common sense, but I realize that the people here on the forum are likely in the rarer catagory that IS attempting to achieve something beyond the norm. That said, be reasonable and don't jam this **** down your throats until other far simpler options are exhausted. That IS common sense for anyone.
  23. Jan 23, 2010 #22
    lol, i'm surprised no one has stopped you, yet. i would love to hear your explanation of this.
  24. Jan 23, 2010 #23
    People lay on protein like they think it's going out of style. Did you think I was still talking about Creatine? While it certainly is produced by the body, depending on diet some people DO need it in supplement form (usually strict vegetarians) to boost levels. Creatine is a fairly simple organic acid, although I assume you know that, which is why it is so readily metabolized and stored in situ.

    As for efficacy... let me clarify. If you need to lift weights for 5-10 seconds at a time... then yeah it will work if you're already at your limit without it. If you're working out as part of a general atheletic endevour and not just an attempt to become all-neck, then it's almost completely useless. Creatine is metabolized and expended in SECONDS, after which you're left with metabolites (waste) and ADP/ATP for remaining fuel. That's useful for weightlifting... and... weightlifting.

    Oh, and don't get cute with the ad hominem attacks just because you don't have traction with part of your "audience". I would love to hear your response to DanP. :)
  25. Jan 23, 2010 #24
    Id like to clarify one thing here. The creatine phosphate - creatine phosphokinase system is one of the systems used to buffer ATP in working muscles. IIRC, the most efficient ATP buffer. All muscular activity is powered by the high energy bonds in ATP. Creatine is not directly used as fuel.

    The main benefit of creatine as a sport supplement appears to be up-regulation of creatine phosphate synthesis during the recovery phase between repeated bouts of high intensity exercise with duration of 6 to 30 seconds. Contrary to the popular belief , creatine supplementation appears not to be very useful in an event consisting of a single bout. Whatever effect it may have , it is too small to be quantified in this case.

    In effect, it may be useful in training as well, enabling an athlete to better recover during subsequent training bouts taking place in the same session. For example when training max-strength , a better recovery **inter sets** of squats, presses, whatever. This can be very beneficial for some individuals.

    However, more often than not stalling progress for months in lifts it is not a indicator of the need of supplementation with creatine or even more powerful substances such as steroids.
    It is merely a consequence of inadequate training. There was a father in this thread who said he didnt yet allowed his son creatine use. Obviously, Im not familiar with the detail of the particular case, but I believe it was a good decision. If one is training alone in a gym without the benefit of a competent strength and conditioning coach (Im not talking about bodybuilding here), when progress stalls for many months, it is more often the not the case to revisit your training , training loads, and the recovery strategy used.
  26. Jan 23, 2010 #25
    We're on the same page here. Metabolism doesn't have to = Creatine as fuel. Creatine is expended in about 3-5 seconds, which is rapid, and it leaves metabolites which require at least 2 more passes of enzymes to break down further (at that point it is no longer useful in the skeletal muscles). It delays the "burn" of ADP/ATP, which leaves you with about 8-10 seconds of peak activity instead of 5 max. While Creatine is not directly consumed as fuel, when it is broken down in its first pass what is left is the metabolites which are waste, and ADP and ATP as remaining fuel. That's not to imply you were not using ATP to begin with. That would be like saying adding Nitrous Oxide to a gasoline/air mixture somehow adds hydrocarbons to achieve its effect. It's a matter of boosting (in the latter) and retarding (in the former) reaction to achieve a desired result.

    Also... For Proton Soup: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/creatine/NS_patient-creatine/DSECTION=safety
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook