9 replies to this topic

[lucid]

I was reading through Wikipedia, and I found this statement:

"Reasons why recommending a population-wide increase would be premature: Little is known about the absorption and clearance of resveratrol, the identities of its metabolic products, or its effects on the liver. The research on resveratrol has focused on its short-term effects and has been mainly done on non-human models."

I figured this was a good place to see what we do know about absorption and clearance of resveratrol.

[VP.]

"Reasons why recommending a population-wide increase would be premature: Little is known about the absorption and clearance of resveratrol, the identities of its metabolic products, or its effects on the liver. The research on resveratrol has focused on its short-term effects and has been mainly done on non-human models."

This statement was taken word for word from the web site Quackwatch. The article it was excerpted from has not been updated in 8 years and that article was referencing papers form 1997-98. If anyone has something new please post it but the Wiki statement is a bit dated.
http://www.quackwatc...esveratrol.html

[luv2increase]

Quackwatch is quack. I am surprised that so many ppl take what is said there as 100%, no questions asked proof.

[lucid]

Well if this info is bogus, I would love to fix the wiki. Anyone know anything about how it is cleared from the body and what its metabolites are?

[caston]

More importantly quackwatch isn't a valid source for use in wikipedia as it isn't peer reviewed.

[Mind]

There are so many resveratrol threads here at Imminst...the answer and correction for Wikipedia must be outhe there.

[lucid]

"Reasons why recommending a population-wide increase would be premature: Little is known about the absorption and clearance of resveratrol, the identities of its metabolic products, or its effects on the liver. The research on resveratrol has focused on its short-term effects and has been mainly done on non-human models." ---Roy, H., Lundy, S., Resveratrol, Pennington Nutrition Series, 2005 No. 7

Above is from a 2005 source, however the text in the pdf article is taken word for word from a 1999 quackwatch.com article: (http://www.quackwatc...esveratrol.html). This quackwatch article references a 1998 article. Quack watch is not pier reviewed and most importantly this statement made from 1998 observations is no longer true in 2007.

We know a lot more about Resveratrol Metabolites:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....t_uids=12523673
http://www.ncbi.nlm....l=pubmed_docsum

Outdated material should be removed.LucidWay 18:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well it is now in the process of being fixed. Found some good articles.

It seems all of the bioavialability studies look at very low doses of resveratrol and find virtually no unconjuated resveratrol in blood plasma.

[edward]

Just FYI, Wikipedia is a great starting point to review the popular consensus and get some general ideas about a subject from people who take the time to read, research and write about it, but as I am sure you all know, anyone can edit Wiki and the information is hardly reliable. (Just a personal Wikipedia gripe). I know people who try to site Wikipedia as a source in graduate level papers... and well that is just plain silly.

[electric buddha]

I know people who try to site Wikipedia as a source in graduate level papers... and well that is just plain silly.

A bit off topic, but seriously? I would have gotten an automatic grade deduction all the way back in high school for citing Britannica, let alone wikipedia, as a reference. By grade 12 it'd be an automatic trip to the waste bin and a failing mark. And my high school was one of the most academically backward and low level I had ever imagined existed. I can't even grasp how someone could get that far into university and still not understand basic research skills.

[lucid]

Just FYI, Wikipedia is a great starting point to review the popular consensus and get some general ideas about a subject from people who take the time to read, research and write about it, but as I am sure you all know, anyone can edit Wiki and the information is hardly reliable. (Just a personal Wikipedia gripe). I know people who try to site Wikipedia as a source in graduate level papers... and well that is just plain silly.

I agree, its a great way to get a general idea about something and find some sources, but it is hardly reliable. Wiki is as good as we make it, and I do my little part to make it better.