We grew up knowing that carbon exists in two very different pure forms: graphite, and diamonds. In 1985, a third form of carbon was synthesized: the fullerene class of nanometer-sized balls (and later, tubes). These were named by the discoverers after Buckminster Fuller, a very interesting character himself; Fuller was most famous for building geodesic domes -- stable, strong structures constructed out of polygons. The structure of buckminsterfullerene, C60, resembles a soccer ball. So another name for the C60 nanoparticle is "Buckyballs." The 1996 Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded for this discovery.
All this I pretty much knew. What I didn't know until you asked, was that there are people claiming that it's a useful thing to ingest or to put on your body. My instinct is to think that it is a particularly bad idea to take a novel synthetic nanoparticle into your body, and that if we are gonna worry about nanoplastics in the environment and in our food supply and in our bodies, then probably we would have at least the same level of worry about nanoballs of carbon. But maybe I was missing something, so I did a bit of reading.
When I want to spend a little time looking into some particular thing's safety and health effects (positive or negative), I don't find it very useful to ask google "is C60 [or whatever] good for you?" There's a lot of bullsh*t out there. Google scholar can be a little better -- this is a tool for searching the published scholarly literature. Unfortunately the explosion of predatory journals, merely bad journals, and pseudo-science journals, and of the scientists and pseudo-scientists who publish in them means that there is a lot bullsh*t in the "scholarly" literature as well.
If you want to really get into the weeds you can try to figure out whether the publication is in a high quality journal by checking the "impact factor." In general, research papers in journals that get cited by a lot of other research papers are considered higher quality. But this is a lot of work and is not a quick way to get the answers you are looking for.
People have strong feelings these days about trust and mistrust for institutions like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but they do have a lot of scientists working there who know how to do the leg work of assessing the quality of research claims. Are there any reports of FDA warning supplement makers to stop claiming C60 is good for you? Yes, there are. Are there any reports from the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) of the European Union? There are.
The difference between drugs and supplements is very blurry. In my mind, if C60 does just one or two of the good things that are claimed by the people who want to sell you some, then I would call it a very powerful drug. I don't know of any drug ever since the beginning of time which is all upside and no downside. That's why, for me, the standard is that I want pretty good evidence of SAFETY and EFFICACY -- both -- before I think about taking something. For C60 I don't really see evidence of either in well-done human studies. But there's some concerning stuff about what it might do in the brains of fish who are exposed to it.
You'd have to pay me about a million bucks to try it!
No shortcuts. Eat well, exercise hard, sleep well, take care of yourself and the people and world around you!
Thank you so much for taking the time to research this, I really appreciate it. And I appreciate your explanations of the information you found. I have enjoyed reading your Substack newsletter and look forward to more!
Hi, I was wondering what you thought about C 60? I have found the following information, but I am very curious as to your take on it.
C60 optimizes mitochondrial function
C60 promotes energy, mental clarity, and stamina
C60 promotes a balanced immune response
C60 supports athletic performance and recovery
C60 may help with mild memory loss associated with aging
C60 promotes skin vitality and hair growth
C60 may lessen the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles when applied topically
Thanks. Norma
Hi Norma!
We grew up knowing that carbon exists in two very different pure forms: graphite, and diamonds. In 1985, a third form of carbon was synthesized: the fullerene class of nanometer-sized balls (and later, tubes). These were named by the discoverers after Buckminster Fuller, a very interesting character himself; Fuller was most famous for building geodesic domes -- stable, strong structures constructed out of polygons. The structure of buckminsterfullerene, C60, resembles a soccer ball. So another name for the C60 nanoparticle is "Buckyballs." The 1996 Nobel prize in chemistry was awarded for this discovery.
All this I pretty much knew. What I didn't know until you asked, was that there are people claiming that it's a useful thing to ingest or to put on your body. My instinct is to think that it is a particularly bad idea to take a novel synthetic nanoparticle into your body, and that if we are gonna worry about nanoplastics in the environment and in our food supply and in our bodies, then probably we would have at least the same level of worry about nanoballs of carbon. But maybe I was missing something, so I did a bit of reading.
When I want to spend a little time looking into some particular thing's safety and health effects (positive or negative), I don't find it very useful to ask google "is C60 [or whatever] good for you?" There's a lot of bullsh*t out there. Google scholar can be a little better -- this is a tool for searching the published scholarly literature. Unfortunately the explosion of predatory journals, merely bad journals, and pseudo-science journals, and of the scientists and pseudo-scientists who publish in them means that there is a lot bullsh*t in the "scholarly" literature as well.
If you want to really get into the weeds you can try to figure out whether the publication is in a high quality journal by checking the "impact factor." In general, research papers in journals that get cited by a lot of other research papers are considered higher quality. But this is a lot of work and is not a quick way to get the answers you are looking for.
People have strong feelings these days about trust and mistrust for institutions like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but they do have a lot of scientists working there who know how to do the leg work of assessing the quality of research claims. Are there any reports of FDA warning supplement makers to stop claiming C60 is good for you? Yes, there are. Are there any reports from the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) of the European Union? There are.
https://www.fda.gov/inspections-compliance-enforcement-and-criminal-investigations/warning-letters/bioactive-c60fullerlifec60-llc-605954-03302020
https://www.cirs-group.com/en/cosmetics/sccs-issued-final-opinion-on-the-safety-of-fullerenes-hydroxylated-fullerenes-and-hydrated-forms-of-hydroxylated-fullerenes-nano
The difference between drugs and supplements is very blurry. In my mind, if C60 does just one or two of the good things that are claimed by the people who want to sell you some, then I would call it a very powerful drug. I don't know of any drug ever since the beginning of time which is all upside and no downside. That's why, for me, the standard is that I want pretty good evidence of SAFETY and EFFICACY -- both -- before I think about taking something. For C60 I don't really see evidence of either in well-done human studies. But there's some concerning stuff about what it might do in the brains of fish who are exposed to it.
You'd have to pay me about a million bucks to try it!
No shortcuts. Eat well, exercise hard, sleep well, take care of yourself and the people and world around you!
Thank you so much for taking the time to research this, I really appreciate it. And I appreciate your explanations of the information you found. I have enjoyed reading your Substack newsletter and look forward to more!
Norma B.