• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

What are your Resveratrol Expectations?


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 makoss

  • Guest
  • 76 posts
  • 0
  • Location:NYC

Posted 25 January 2007 - 08:23 PM


I have my own reasons for taking RSV daily (500MG). IÕd like to be able to continue eating a diet that IÕve grown up with without worrying about my arteries clogging and damaging my organs. Any extra energy gained from its use is a plus. What about everyone else? We are all taking supplements to prevent illness and maintain good health. Some are target specific. What are your personal health expectations of RSV? Would you continue to take other supplements if RSV does all that it claims to do or be? Just wondering......

#2 curious_sle

  • Guest
  • 464 posts
  • 12
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 25 January 2007 - 08:40 PM

well, i've been quoted in that wired article :-) but... basically i just hope to get started on that damn arcturial escape velocity and be it at 0.1 speed so far as i simply hope to be at the best shape i can at, say 30 years + from now when i hope real stuff starts materializing. I hope of course it's much sooner but hey maybe 30 years is way overoptimistic.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 shadowrun

  • Guest
  • 327 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Stamford, CT

Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:08 PM

I'm just hoping it does 25% of what it supposedly can do
Give me 10-20% longer lifespan - Better overall health
I'm not gonna set myself up for huge disappointment - but I feel if it delivers even 25% of the hype - it will be huge

But If RESV does in humans what it does in Mice...

I'd still
take a good multi - fish oil - Drink green tea
I would focus on eating healthy (but less than I do now - I'd definately eat out more often)
I'd Maintain a moderate exercise regimen (Even though I should supposedly look great anyway)

The extra steps I feel would put me far ahead of the general population curve...if it doesnt already

From there i'd have to trust science to continue to progress toward immortality

Superficially, I can at least see these 3 things below happening if RESV works

1. More people would be eating like crap (Bumping back up the fast food and soft drink industry - Buy your Krispy Kreme stock now!)
2. The majority would exercise less (Exercise to a majority is a cosmetic detail - Why kill yourself if will still look great)
3. It would be hard to resist the tempation to live more decadently...how many alcoholics or smokers would stop if they might make it to 150 anyway?

and undoubtedly RESV would soon be a catalyst for much grander social/political/historical changes

If RESV is a success certain groups at least here in the US will claim that this drug correlates to the beast (666) and the end of times -
I could see it also contributing to more social unrest (Crazy christian based extremists killing in the name of god and defying world Govts)

#4 tintinet

  • Guest
  • 1,972 posts
  • 503
  • Location:ME

Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:45 PM

I expect it to serve as just one small component in my quest for TOTAL WORLD DOMINATION!!!! AAAAHHHHHAAAHHHHAAAA!!!

Just kidding! :)


My goals are similar, if not identical to those of curious_sle.

#5 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 26 January 2007 - 06:36 AM

I've sat on the sidelines for a lot of the resveratrol debates. I'm still torn on how beneficial I think it will be.

#6 olderbutwiser

  • Guest
  • 44 posts
  • 1

Posted 26 January 2007 - 07:46 AM

I'm a ResV adopter - taking 400mg/day now of orchid stuff. My hope/intention is to gain some of the mitochondria improvements seen in studies *and* ResV also seems like a decent antioxidant. I doubt it will have very profound effects on lifespan beyond the curve squaring that several supplements show promise of.

I wouldn't consider it if I was under 40 with what is known right now (not much) & given the current cost for reputable stuff.

My reasoning for being skeptical about any life extension claims:
If all you have to do to gain both current enhancement & gain years of life is turn on a few existing genes, then why didn't evolution turn them on/up long ago? It appears like a "free lunch" scenario. I am sort of waiting for a "shoe to drop" on the ResV story - either there are unknown negative metabolic effects or the implied maximum life extension won't hold up in broad application (or both [wis] ).

Current intervention(s) that have some likelihood of extending maximum lifespan (CR), do so with a fairly high penalty - both subjectively and from a reproductive fitness standpoint. Evolution has been tuning for a long time and rung about all that is available from the design. If there is a breakthrough that offers both current enhancement and longer life - I would expect it will be from a xenobiotic intervention that does not use "natural" genes - either genetic engineering, nanotech or manipulations of stem cells. It seems implausible that just tuning a bit on gene expression & metabolism via supplements -including ResV- will yield anything beyond some curve squaring.

OBW

#7 tom a

  • Guest
  • 121 posts
  • 0

Posted 26 January 2007 - 02:06 PM

olderbutwiser,

I think you raise some interesting points.

But your argument that evolution should already have enabled the life extension capabilities in cells if it were easy to do so misses some important points.

Most importantly, for the vast majority of human, primate, and mammal evolution, life expectancy was vastly lower than life expectancy under our current conditions, in which we don't have to worry about food, and can treat or prevent most diseases. Throughout most of human evolution, the average life expectancy was probably well below 30 years. How would extending maximum life span to 150 years, when essentially no one would ever actually achieve that age, have done us as a species any good in terms of survival? Evolution had other problems on its hands.

Beyond that, if extending life were something that evolution should already have handled, as you believe, why should it have not already handled the squaring of the curve? Indeed, the squaring of the curve could be more important, one would think, because it deals with the survival of younger organisms, more likely to have an effect on survival of the species.

#8 edbear

  • Guest
  • 11 posts
  • 0

Posted 26 January 2007 - 06:03 PM

tom a hits the hail on the head - just about every curve for aging-related degenerative changes in humans starts to head downhill in the mid-30's, which likely corresponds to the maximum lifespan of a human in the "wild" some 20000 or so years ago.

There cannot be selection for mutations which prevent atherosclerosis or cancer in your 60's when you are already out of the reproductive pool (via Saber Toothed Tigers, infections, injuries, starvation, or something) before you hit 35. Peak health years for most mammals correspond roughly to lifespan in the wild.

Under this logic human extended maximum lifespan can be selected for *now* since our reproductive years have been extended, and I recall seeing this calculation made by someone in a seminar a few years back but don't have the reference handy. If I recall correctly the MLSP curve will be extended out via natural selection in another 400 generations or so, which is a tad late for most of us.

#9 health_nutty

  • Guest
  • 2,410 posts
  • 94
  • Location:California

Posted 26 January 2007 - 07:08 PM

I'm a ResV adopter -
My reasoning for being skeptical about any life extension claims:
If all you have to do to gain both current enhancement & gain years of life is turn on a few existing genes, then why didn't evolution turn them on/up long ago? It appears like a "free lunch" scenario.

OBW


We've evolved to live long enough to reproduce and make sure our offspring are self sufficient. After that we are irrelevant evolutionary speaking.

#10 malbecman

  • Guest
  • 733 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Sunny CA

Posted 26 January 2007 - 09:54 PM

I'll sidestep the interesting evolution discussions.

I expect ResV to:

1) Let me eat pizza and lose weight

2) Satisfy my lover all night long

3) Refinance my house for an unbelievable low rate.

OK, maybe not. I expected and have felt an increase in energy levels as well as a decrease in appetite and overall sweetness cravings. I think it may add some years to my life but I think, more importantly, it may add to the quality of my remaining years. Worst case, I'm out some money and have some expensive urine...

#11 shadowrun

  • Guest
  • 327 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Stamford, CT

Posted 26 January 2007 - 10:12 PM

Worst case, I'm out some money and have some expensive urine...

Not just normal urine but urine loaded with vitamins and minerals, Antioxidants - Resveratrol

Considering some of the things i've seen touted as herbal cures and ancient remedies...

Maybe we can bottle or encapsulate some of our piss and sell it as a dietary supplement

Maybe write a book - "The Urine Cure" - "Supplementing with Secretions" - "The Piss Fast Diet"

Edited by shadowrun, 26 January 2007 - 10:25 PM.


#12 health_nutty

  • Guest
  • 2,410 posts
  • 94
  • Location:California

Posted 26 January 2007 - 10:23 PM

Maybe write a book - "The Urine Cure" - "Supplementing with Secretions" - "The Piss Fast Diet"


I kid you not: someone beat you to the punch. Do a search on urine therapy. Needless it say (I hope) I'm not following this therapy.

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#13 shadowrun

  • Guest
  • 327 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Stamford, CT

Posted 26 January 2007 - 10:26 PM

Freakin story of my life :(




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users