Very cool. Are you going to try it?rhett wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:12 amJust got an email from MyDnaAge that they’re doing a discount for orders of 2 methylation test kits for the new year, but specifically for people who are beginning an aging intervention that they want to see if it’s working. The idea is like, you’d do a test, start taking Nmn, the 6 months later do another test and see if your numbers have improved. I’ve been doing nmn for 6 months so I’m not sure How great it would be for me. Might just do one test. But thought I’d pass it along to the test of you...
I would be very interested in your ongoing results.
I took the test a few a few months ago and got back a bioage of right around my chronological age. This was a bit surprising since the two other bioage tests I've taken, Teloyears and Inside Tracker's "InnerAge" test both showed a bioage of at least twenty years younger than my chronological age.
After consulting with them over the results, they agreed to send another test kit to verify the initial results. Two months later I received results from the second test. This time it showed a bioage 13 years older than the first test! This made no sense, so I had a conference call with two of their scientists who advised me this had never happened before. Never before had they seen two tests within two months with such wide results and they could not explain it.
I had a bit of a suspicion that taking TMG (Trimethylglycine) daily to counteract any lost methyl groups from taking NMN, which I started just after the first test (and which Sinclair is doing) may have skewed the results on the second test, but if they're testing methyl groups located on the DNA itself and not systemic methylation I'm not sure why this would have affected the test. In other words, I'm scratching for an explanation when it could just be their testing methods are not very sound.
Something else that came up in the conference call that kind of disturbed me was their lack of knowledge about the concept of "layers of methylation" that Sinclair talks about. According to this theory, there are deep layers of methylation on the epigenome that contribute to aging and that cannot be undone without extreme measures like resetting the epigenome, as in Sinclair's recent mouse experiments on the optic nerve. On the other hand, upper layers of methylation are not as permanent and can be reduced through things like diet and exercise and/or possibly NAD boosters. The point is their test cannot make any distinction between these different layers of methylation and you are left not knowing if any efforts on your part via diet or exercise could possibly improve your bioage results.
Doing a Google search turned up several people who complained that they had glowing results from long telomeres testing and very poor results from MyDnage, as I had. I'm not sure if there's any correlation there but I found that to be interesting.
The long and short is I don't know how reliable methylation testing is and how affected the test might be by the kind of supplements many of us are now on. It is still early days on this kind of bioage testing and you might get worked up into a panic for no reason. Just my opinion and hope this helps.
Very interesting, taking into account your potentially disturbing set of conflicting results.
Grounds to probably give these tests some serious thought before laying out the “hard earned cash”