1 reply to this topic

[zawy]

The worms were in a medium of 100 uM (23 mg/l = 23 ppm) and the agar for the flies were the same.  This is equal to the low dose fish group that showed no benefit and 25 times less than what the high-dose fish.  Based on dose per calorie consumed (23 ppm) this would be only 23 mg RESV for someone who eats 1 kg per day of food.  As shown in previous post this dose/calorie method overestimates what the FDA and EPA consider the human equivalent dose.  The worms lived 14% longer and the flies lived 18% longer.

http://sinclairfs.me.../nature2004.pdf

The yeast work showed big benefits at 10 uM (2.3 ppm) and saturation around 100 uM (23 ppm), but I don't think this is in terms of food consumed, so I can't compare.

http://www.fiestater.../nature2003.pdf

So it seems the fish study is the only one that can show relevance to humans taking more than 23 mg/day.

[zawy]

2007 article shows no benefit to the worms nor the flies: ref 1
2007 article shows 30% increase in lifespan of worms: ref 2a

The mice report showed a 30% increase in lifespan on 22 mg/kg/day resveratrol in a high-calorie diet (90 Calorie/week) for ~45 gram mice. This is equivalent to 155 mg resveratrol per day on a 2000 Calorie/day diet, or 300 mg/day if using my safety factor of 2. Standard HED equation gives 133 mg/day for 70 kg. This is close to the high-dose fish which showed 56% improvement. It seems like we don't have an animal study to refer to when taking doses above 200 mg/day.

If it was in food, the mice study used 230 ppm RESV based on 3 Cal/g

Edited by zawy, 15 January 2008 - 12:52 PM.