ResearchSafe

Methylene blue for mitochondrial support, anyone actually tried low dose cycling?

Posted by student748 in Research & News - 3 points, 5 comments.

Just came across the methylene blue profile page here (/peptides/methylene-blue) and honestly i find it pretty interesting. Its been around for over a century as a pharmaceutical and now its getting pushed hard in telemedicine longevity protocols as a mitochondrial enhancer. The mechanism makes sense to me on paper, acting as an alternative electron carrier in the ETC, bypassing complex I-III blockades. For what it is worth that is a genuinely clever pharmacological idea compared to most "mitochondrial support" supplements that do basically nothing.

But here is where i get skeptical. The claims people make about cognitive enhancement and anti-aging at a cellular level seem heaps ahead of what the actual evidence supports. Low dose 0.5-2 mg/kg daily or cycled is a pretty wide range and i wonder how many people self-dosing actually know where in that range they sit. The serotonin syndrome risk with SSRIs is no joke either, especially since heaps of people on these longevity protocols are also on antidepressants.

Im curious if anyone here has actually cycled low dose MB and noticed anything real for energy or recovery. Or is it mostly placebo and blue urine? Keen to hear actual experiences before i form a stronger opinion on it.

Comments

  • trevor_mobility: I have been curious about this one too, the electron carrier mechanism is interesting from biochemistry perspective but I have not tried it myself yet. One thing I worry about is the dosing range you mentioned, 0.5 to 2 mg/kg is actually big difference for someone like me at around 70kg, that is 35mg up to 140mg. Seems like very different exposure depending where you land. Also I read that MB quality matters a lot, something about heavy metal contamination in non-pharma grades? Maybe someone h
  • student748: Yeah that dose math is exactly what got me thinking too, at my weight it is the same sort of spread, 35mg vs 140mg is a totally different exposure profile for what is supposedly the same "low dose" protocol. For what it is worth i do not think most people are doing the kg math at all, they are just following whatever some clinic told them. The heavy metal contamination thing is real from what i have read, non-pharma grade MB can have zinc and other contaminants from the synthesis process. But i
  • zoe_rows: The dosing range thing is a real issue. To be fair, most of the "low dose" people I've seen talk about it are way under 0.5 mg/kg, like 0.5 to 4 mg total. Not per kg. Have you seen anyone actually running the 35mg+ range? The contamination concern is legit from what I've read. USP grade exists for a reason.
  • sleep_coastal: Anecdotally I ran MB at 0.5 mg/kg twice a week for a month and felt a slight boost in morning clarity, but I switched to pharm grade after noticing a metallic taste that hinted at impurities. Ever test yours?
  • student748: Nah havent started yet, still just reading and trying to figure out where id even begin with dosing. The metallic taste thing is interesting tho, for what it is worth that seems like a pretty smart call to switch. Did you notice the clarity effect pretty quick like within the first few doses or did it build over that month? Keen to hear whether it held up or faded.

Community discussion - research and educational context only. Not medical advice.