I've read the other threads and wondered what people's most recent thoughts were on Longevinex resveratrol. Is it really significantly better then other brands?
Posted 21 August 2004 - 03:55 AM
Posted 21 August 2004 - 04:03 AM
Posted 21 August 2004 - 04:21 AM
Posted 21 August 2004 - 07:03 AM
Posted 21 August 2004 - 07:46 AM
Posted 21 August 2004 - 09:43 PM
Perhaps unoxidized resveratrol.
If you read some of the prior threads e.g.:
David Sinclair is pumping up resveratrol, ...he's selling "Longevinex"
it suggests that resveratrol products are super easily oxidized....perhaps this companies stuff is hype, perhaps not. I have no idea and wanted to know if there was a general concensus on this (Kevin, Nosmadar, or BJKlein any more recent thoughts?). But if it is true that resveratrol is super easily oxidized then any you bought in powder form....
From another thread:
"longevinex that contains a bioactive form of resveratrol. Apparently, the makers of the product hired the Harvard scientist whose research shows the CR-mimetic effects of resveratrol to help them in developing a resveratrol-based supplement. Said researcher, David Sinclair, examined the potency of the various supplements on the market and found them severely wanting, so he worked with the longevinex folks to develop a manufacturing process that protects the compound from the oxidation that renders it ineffective. "
Posted 16 August 2005 - 08:53 PM
Posted 17 August 2005 - 11:38 PM
Posted 18 August 2005 - 01:19 AM
Posted 29 September 2005 - 01:09 PM
Posted 04 April 2006 - 07:13 PM
Posted 05 April 2006 - 02:40 AM
Posted 06 April 2006 - 04:36 AM
Posted 06 April 2006 - 04:55 AM
Posted 06 April 2006 - 01:32 PM
Where specifically did you get that from? I just did a little looking around on that website, and here's what I have so far.
While a recommended daily allowance has yet to be established, researchers believe a minimum of 500 milligrams of resveratrol should be taken to help reduce the risk of cancer.” [ www.chiroweb.com ]
Now scroll down to the bottom where the references are to find that study backing up the dosage recommendations, labeled 33....
Even the best red wines may have little more than 2 mg per liter, but research in the scientific literature suggests that at least 10 times that amount (20 mg) is needed to begin to optimize the potential health benefits of resveratrol, and a hundred times that amount (100 to 200 mg) or more is required for actual potential therapeutic purposes.33
Posted 06 April 2006 - 01:35 PM
Which researchers believe a minimum of 500mg of cancer should be taken and where did they put that in print? They don't even have a decoy missing footnote this time.
How much resveratrol should I take?
While a recommended daily allowance has yet to be established, researchers believe a minimum of 500 milligrams of resveratrol should be taken to help reduce the risk of cancer. A glass of red wine contains approximately 640 micrograms of resveratrol; a handful of peanuts supplies nearly 75 micrograms.
Edited by FunkOdyssey, 06 April 2006 - 02:49 PM.
Posted 06 April 2006 - 05:03 PM
Posted 06 April 2006 - 08:15 PM
Posted 06 April 2006 - 08:22 PM
Posted 07 April 2006 - 02:47 AM
Posted 07 April 2006 - 02:58 AM
Posted 07 April 2006 - 06:39 AM
Posted 07 April 2006 - 06:45 AM
In general anything organic has 2.5 times the antioxidant power of conventionally grown fruits and veggies.
Posted 07 April 2006 - 07:07 AM
Posted 07 April 2006 - 07:21 AM
Posted 07 April 2006 - 01:08 PM
Posted 07 April 2006 - 01:26 PM
Being called "doctor" (which could mean chiropractic, naturopathic, etc), giving speeches, and writing books doesn't make someone a credible expert. All manner of snake oil peddlers have operated with that kind of resume.
We're looking for scientific evidence to back up this pretty wild claim. The idea that all organic fruits and vegetables have 2.5x the antioxidant power is ridiculous on many levels. Does pesticide somehow drain antioxidants from the fruit? Why would this arbitrary 2.5x factor apply to all different varieties of plants? It makes no sense.
Posted 07 April 2006 - 05:21 PM
Here's my understanding:
The claim that organically harvested crop has more vitamins or whatever is crap, the fact is that the level of such nutrients etc. is very strictly under genetical control in a given plant and does not vary according to how the plants are grown.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users