Note: This is one of dozens of key molecules you cannot get from diet. In fact, all hormones, such as DHEA and others, fall into this bucket. I personally supplement with hGH, testosterone, DHEA, melatonin, natural thyroid, and progesterone. While all of my levels are normal for my age (47), through supplementation I keep them in the range of a 28-yr-old. This is where I plan to keep them my entire life. It's simply impossible to keep our hormones at this 28-yr-old level without supplementation because of our body's natural age-related decay (especially via the chronic damage done via glycation and accumulated mitochondrial DNA damage, reducing cellular energy and function).

BTW, I take several supplements that reduce glycation damage that cannot by found in foods. But this is getting into more advanced areas of supplementation. I even take the one substance currently known that undoes "advanced glycation end-products" (look it up on wikipedia), ALT-711 (unavailable to the public). When I started taking this several years ago within a few weeks my blood pressure went down several points, and the muscles in my legs became a little more flexible (I have several black belts to I'm fully dialed in on flexibility issues). Basically, glycation causes hardening of all organs, including wrinkles in our skin, and the hardening of the lens within our eyes. It's an inescapable result of aging. So reducing and reversing it is one of my primary supplementation goals.

I ended up getting the magnesium, niacin and melatonin, for now. I had already done some research on magnesium and niacin and had planned to try those. And, have heard a lot about melatonin over the years. You didn't mention dosage for that, they had 1, 3, and 5 mg, so I got the 3.

I personally take numerous marine lipids:
o 4 of the LEP caps daily
o 4 krill oil caps daily
o 1 seal oil cap (has the rare DPA, an omega-3 found in early human breast milk)
o i Fucoidan daily:
http://www.vrp.com/ProductPage.aspx?ProdID=1475

I've probably spend no less than 2-3 hours each day researching the topics of health and fitness, and have been doing this for 10 years. For supplements alone, I just don't know of a single great source–like Cordain's version of the Paleo Diet, I've not found any single source that I fully agree with. My personal knowledge is a best-fit of ALL the books, articles and opinions I've read, melding with all the the research I've read, filtered through the lens of evolution. I firmly believe in the phrase, "Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution." So this is always my touchstone.

I see that Stephan is quite resistant to supplements, and this may end up being his blind spot, despite his genius in the area of diet.

I fully embrace any tactic that adds quality of life, and adds longevity of life.

I've said many times in other forums (I'm a long-time poster on ImmInst.org, in the nutrition and supplement forums) that the older we are, the more chances we must take. Therefore, at 47, I probably take several supplements I wouldn't necessarily recommend to someone half my age. My goal is to live long enough to live 100's years, via projects I've invested in, like http://www.sens.org. So, if I was younger, I might not take 300mg a day of resveratrol. But, at my age, I need to take a few cautious risks. I also monitor over 125 blood markers every 9-12 months to catch anything that might be out-of-whack before it gets out-of-hand. So far, my cognitive function (I take a lot of very safe nootropics) and every other measurable marker indicates I'm much much younger than my age. I can do anything I could do in my mid-20's, and at nearly 48 I just do not feel anywhere close to being on a downhill slide. I'll be in significantly better shape than Art when I'm his age if this keeps up.

Most likely, one of three things will kill most of us who die a "natural death": heart disease, cancer, brain disease. All three of these can be seriously reduced in odds by diet and supplements. Resveratrol, for example, is the ultimate anti-cancer chemical — worth billions if it could be patented by a pharmaceutical company. It blocks cancer in the five known ways that cancer can be defeated:
o boosts immunity, a primary natural defense versus cancer cells
o greatly reduces metastasis, the spreading of cancer through the body
o silences 100's of gene-controlled mechanisms that lead to cancer cell survival and growth
o reduces the fermentation within cancer cells that gives them their metabolic energy
o inhibits angiogenesis, the growth of blood vessels that feed growing tumors

1000's of people are taking resveratrol at amounts equal to 500 bottles of red wine daily, with no reported ill effects. This is at the same relative quality used by Dr. David Sinclair at his famous Harvard studies to show numerous pro-aging effects.

These are no Chinese herbs I'm taking — every supplement I take is backed by real science, and most have been in our food supply safely for 1000+ years, like olive oil polyphenols, blueberry polyphenols, and green tea polyphenols.

Anyway, I can write about this a lot more, but you get the idea.

Turns out, I'll be talking about health tomorrow, live, online:
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=28288

Scott:

Have been wanting to get a reply out on this for days. First, thank you for posting this. It's great info. Though I didn't include it, I sure do use lots of coconut oil (and full fat milk) myself as well.

A question on the EPA/DHA. You say two grams, but though I take 3 grams of salmon oil and 2 of CLO for a total of 5 grams, the omega 3 content is only 1605 mg, 1335 of which is EPA (720mg) and DHA (615 mg). Does that sound about right?

Also, I noticed on another comment that you indicated you take 15mg per day of MK-4, and here it's 5, so did you forget a 1, or accidentally add a 1?

Finally, do you have any decent single source of info that covers all or most of these, and perhaps others?

Keith:

I'm actually not aware of who this is. Could you email and let me know so that I can keep an eye out, for my own sake and that of others?

As to sources, well, I don't think there are many for D, and that's likely because we evolved out in the sun and had no need to get D from food. As for MK-4, see here:

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamin-k2.html#fig4

Liver, pastured eggs, pastured dairy, fish eggs seem to be the best sources. I think there's some in marrow, too.

The soil issue is something that I have not taken any time to look into. Since the vast majority of my diet is carnivory, I think it may be a minor issue for me.

Can science create an even better diet, you ask. Well, it's theoretically possible, but extraordinarily unlikely.

I eat red grapes (and chew their pips) and drink a red wine once a week or so. But I wouldn’t touch a resveratrol supplement. It’s my guess resveratrol supplements would be just like anti-oxidant supplements: having a different effect in the body whether taken as part of a natural diet when the consuming body is fit and active in a Palaeolithic way or as a pill by a couch potato body experiencing 21st century stresses etc.

I don't see longevity as particularly to be aimed for, though it appears to be the implied metric used to demonstrate the virtues of this diet / that lifestyle / the other fitness regime. I have seen far too many feeble (really feeble) people approaching 100 to want such a fate. I'm 60 now and have "rude good health" and I look forward to continuing through to 75. After that, I expect a more rapid decline, but if I still haven't been prescribed meds, I can exert myself vigorously to do everything I need to do, while my brain does not succumb to enfeeblement and while the friends and family I cherish also value me, I'll continue happily as I am. As we say over here “I wouldn’t be dead for quids”!

But, back to my main point… We are not optimally engineered via evolution, which is a key reason seemingly small changes in inputs (lack of sunshine, changes in diet over the last 100 years) have dramatically worsened the health of "advanced civilization."

The paleo diet is perhaps the best *natural* diet for ensuring the ongoing perpetuation of our species, but one must ask the obvious question: Can science create an even better diet, perhaps building upon the paleo diet? And how would this diet be better?

One way is to provide optimal, science-proven inputs, versus inputs at levels that are merely good enough to ensure the survival of our species.

It turns out there are numerous supplements that provide improved levels of health at higher-than-paleo quantities. It also turns out that there are other natural and non-natural substances than have a profound net positive benefit on human health. One of the ones making news in the last three years is resveratrol. But there are literally several dozen others, and you cannot get these at optimal levels relying on diet alone.

Frankly, I don't think you can get nearly enough K2 from diet alone, for example. I make sure I get MK-4 (15m daily) and MK-7 (1mg daily) from supplements. Yes, a paleo diet might get you a decent quantity of K2, but not at levels shown to reverse arterial plaque in studies–the level I come closer to taking.

It's our birthright to live to 90. What we eat, and how we live, can subtract or add to that average. Eating a poor diet can subtract 55 years. I'm personally shooting for 100+. It's not a dream. Most of us can make it. We just need to try.

You may already know who he is. That's not what's important for this topic. What is relevant is that for the supplements he recommends, he generally lists the natural sources of these chemicals, so people can make their own choices about supplementation through pharmaceuticals, supplementation through healthy food and activity regimes or a combination.

What can you suggest about the sources our Palaeolithic ancestors had for vitamin D (3), Omega-3s (I think we all know the answer to that one), vitamin K2, menatetrenone (MK-4)?

As to other supplements, there are soils which are either deficient in certain minerals or else the minerals, though present, are locked up in very stable compounds because the soil microbes (bacteria and fungi) have been disabled through aridification or other degradation. Soils in parts of China are, effectively, deficient in iodine. Soils in Australia ("the oldest continent") have lost a lot of their selenium. It's no good Chinese using USDA data to find out how much iodine is present in foods grown in parts of their country, nor should Australians assume that USDA data on the selenium content of beef applies to meat from animals grown in Australia.

So I'd suggest that mineral supplementation based on the nutritional content of the food we actually eat (not national averages) is a subject that could do with more exploration.

Dr. Larry McCleary, a neurosurgeon, wrote "The Brain Trust Program" and discusses why magnesium makes sense for migraines. Actually, the book is full of recommendations for supplementation from a brain health standpoint. He includes diet recommendations as well that aren't strictly Paleo, but he's on the right track for sure. It's a super easy read, you can finish the book in an evening. Highly recommended. He's a friend of the good Doctor Eades so that's also reason enough to check it out.