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

Photo
- - - - -

[This] Forum Overlooks [a product] Which Activates More genes,not just


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#31 hmm

  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • 2

Posted 20 February 2009 - 07:16 AM

You must have scored well on your aptitude tests. Your deduction skills are impecable.


Crep

Not much deduction required when the steps are so repetitive:
1) Create thread with a "shucks-it's-just-little-old-me-who-needs-an-answer rhetorical question that has already been answered 30 or 40 times before in other threads. Preferably include a Longev* link as part of the question
2) Ignore the content of any responses made to the rhetorical question and just follow up with another rhetorical question that hopefully includes another plug for Longev* and, as a bonus, maybe a dig or two at the competition

Kind of like the bashers and pumpers on the Yahoo stock message boards, thinking that they are going to make themselves rich by writing informationless posts that they are convinced will induce selling or buying frenzies for the stocks they've shorted or longed...I don't think it's going to work that well for you, Bill/Crep/jiggy/joe, but if it does, I hope you sell enough product to make it worth all your time and effort!

#32 joe57777

  • Guest
  • 74 posts
  • 1
  • Location:NY

Posted 20 February 2009 - 08:23 AM

hmm,

I am starting to think it is funny! But as I explained before, I do not have a "hidden agenda" to try and market Longevenix in any way, nor any other Resveratrol company. As I said, I am simply looking for the Reveratrol company that produces the most effective combination of ingredients that will complement the most "superior" form of Resveratrol at the "smartest" dosage that is based on the most "up to date" research available, that will have the least amount of side effects (if any). In other words, I don't care if (for example) I find out next week that a company called "Acme" (fictious name for conversation purposes) comes out with a version of a Resveratrol product. If that product were to have the latest research built into it that could be verified by a credible source, I may very well start using that product. See my point? Bottom line is that people say that this is trial and error, I agree with that. However, I have read posts where people were starting with 300-500mg and slowly increasing to 2000mg per day. Many of these people were reporting lasting side effects. Now that is what I call "experimentation"! Who told them to keep increasing their dosage? I could go on with more examples, but again, I think you get my point. My theory that I have developed from reading several posts is more that I want to try and take a pill once or twice a day that has been developed to be a "safe" starting point of Resveratrol for now, with other ingredients that will help the Resveratrol become more effective in my system and handle side effects. When more research comes out, I can then decide if a change is necessary. Meanwhile if the "human mice" want to keep experimenting, that is ok with me. Maybe it will help the researchers?

Hope this paints a better picture that I am not associated with Longevinex!


You must have scored well on your aptitude tests. Your deduction skills are impecable.


Crep

Not much deduction required when the steps are so repetitive:
1) Create thread with a "shucks-it's-just-little-old-me-who-needs-an-answer rhetorical question that has already been answered 30 or 40 times before in other threads. Preferably include a Longev* link as part of the question
2) Ignore the content of any responses made to the rhetorical question and just follow up with another rhetorical question that hopefully includes another plug for Longev* and, as a bonus, maybe a dig or two at the competition

Kind of like the bashers and pumpers on the Yahoo stock message boards, thinking that they are going to make themselves rich by writing informationless posts that they are convinced will induce selling or buying frenzies for the stocks they've shorted or longed...I don't think it's going to work that well for you, Bill/Crep/jiggy/joe, but if it does, I hope you sell enough product to make it worth all your time and effort!


Edited by joe57777, 20 February 2009 - 08:29 AM.


Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#33 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,941 posts
  • 1,615
  • Location:New York

Posted 20 February 2009 - 11:45 AM

I've edited the title of this topic to try and more accurately reflect what information is actually given here, and to make some sense of the grammar. It's somewhat hopeless though as this has degenerated into ad hominem name calling.

I did try to buy ip6, couldn't find. I did buy quercetin, didn't feel the same results, but maybe because I didn't have the ip6, or maybe it was the change in res dosage. Question, it says longevin activates 1000 or however longevity genes. Does anyone know which genes these are?


If you are looking for IP-6, it's readily available, HERE for instance.

Gene activation? (I prefer Levi's.) They ran a panel test with a gene-array in vitro. Not very informative. There is no assurance these are longevity genes, or what they do if anything, or that the combinations might not be harmful rather than pro-longevity. They compared the profiles to CR, and there was more overlap, but no one knows if all the CR activated genes are desirable either. Some genes that were activated by their product are activated neither by CR nor by resveratrol. It's only useful for marketing to the naive.

#34 Crepulance

  • Guest
  • 269 posts
  • -2

Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:10 PM

Man, the CIA needs a man like you. I'm going to go mow the grassy knoll and stage a moon landing now, you keep at it! It is funny how when someone is so paranoid and delusional, the cold readings they will inflict on themselves. By your exact description of your deduction, I assume we must then also believe that 98% of the people on these threads are actually Anthony Leora. Would be reeeeallly hard to find people pushing RevGen on these boards, I don't think the "find" function allows enough results digit spaces for when you type in RevGenetics on these pages. What flavor is your kool-aid?


Crep

You must have scored well on your aptitude tests. Your deduction skills are impecable.


Crep

Not much deduction required when the steps are so repetitive:
1) Create thread with a "shucks-it's-just-little-old-me-who-needs-an-answer rhetorical question that has already been answered 30 or 40 times before in other threads. Preferably include a Longev* link as part of the question
2) Ignore the content of any responses made to the rhetorical question and just follow up with another rhetorical question that hopefully includes another plug for Longev* and, as a bonus, maybe a dig or two at the competition

Kind of like the bashers and pumpers on the Yahoo stock message boards, thinking that they are going to make themselves rich by writing informationless posts that they are convinced will induce selling or buying frenzies for the stocks they've shorted or longed...I don't think it's going to work that well for you, Bill/Crep/jiggy/joe, but if it does, I hope you sell enough product to make it worth all your time and effort!



#35 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:11 PM

Why leave longevinex out of the topic title if that is the product to be discussed in the topic ?

#36 Crepulance

  • Guest
  • 269 posts
  • -2

Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:27 PM

The same reason they changed the title of my breast cancer thread after it being up for months unaltered. They're unabashedly shameless when it comes to biasing these boards and protecting their mother product RevGenetics. (In actuality, technically they should have changed it based on their no product names rule for the purposes of fending off advertising) But they still do inexcusable things like this left and right that have no grounding in the rules.


Crep

Why leave longevinex out of the topic title if that is the product to be discussed in the topic ?



#37 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 20 February 2009 - 01:59 PM

Maybe it would be better if the whole resveratrol section would be blocked for indexing by google so it can't become a place for seo purposes.(with a disclaimer that the section isn't going to be indexed by google)
I'm really fed up with this whole resveratrol issue (not that anybody cares) It is one of the reasons that i don't want to become a paying member again until the troubles around this are solved. I must agree with crep that the board is heavily biased towards revgenetics and resveratrol in general.Information is picked up selectively, dimissing what doesn't fit the paradigm and accepting what can be used to keep the resveratrol mania going.Maybe it would be better to find a sponsor in the car industry :-) Probably hard to find nowadays.

Edited by drmz, 20 February 2009 - 02:02 PM.


#38 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:04 PM

Man, the CIA needs a man like you. I'm going to go mow the grassy knoll and stage a moon landing now, you keep at it! It is funny how when someone is so paranoid and delusional, the cold readings they will inflict on themselves. By your exact description of your deduction, I assume we must then also believe that 98% of the people on these threads are actually Anthony Leora. Would be reeeeallly hard to find people pushing RevGen on these boards, I don't think the "find" function allows enough results digit spaces for when you type in RevGenetics on these pages. What flavor is your kool-aid?


Crep

You must have scored well on your aptitude tests. Your deduction skills are impecable.


Crep

Not much deduction required when the steps are so repetitive:
1) Create thread with a "shucks-it's-just-little-old-me-who-needs-an-answer rhetorical question that has already been answered 30 or 40 times before in other threads. Preferably include a Longev* link as part of the question
2) Ignore the content of any responses made to the rhetorical question and just follow up with another rhetorical question that hopefully includes another plug for Longev* and, as a bonus, maybe a dig or two at the competition

Kind of like the bashers and pumpers on the Yahoo stock message boards, thinking that they are going to make themselves rich by writing informationless posts that they are convinced will induce selling or buying frenzies for the stocks they've shorted or longed...I don't think it's going to work that well for you, Bill/Crep/jiggy/joe, but if it does, I hope you sell enough product to make it worth all your time and effort!


Guys,

I have absolutely no problem talking for myself, and not hiding behind a false name, unlike others that consistently show up as "new users" and push another company multiple times when they write a single paragraph. I believe the admins here know the IP addresses of posters, so that they can compare who is using multiple names and who isn't.

The fact is that the topic ended up being different than the content. I can see why this was done.

A

#39 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:10 PM

Maybe it would be better if the whole resveratrol section would be blocked for indexing by google so it can't become a place for seo purposes.(with a disclaimer that the section isn't going to be indexed by google)
I'm really fed up with this whole resveratrol issue (not that anybody cares) It is one of the reasons that i don't want to become a paying member again until the troubles around this are solved. I must agree with crep that the board is heavily biased towards revgenetics and resveratrol in general.Information is picked up selectively, dimissing what doesn't fit the paradigm and accepting what can be used to keep the resveratrol mania going.Maybe it would be better to find a sponsor in the car industry :-) Probably hard to find nowadays.



drmz,

as you know this section of the board happens to be the "Resveratrol" section, and I am paying for the banner and asking for folks help here to make better products. We were not here in 2006, another company was and they basically quit answering the hard questions and ran away from this board.

I have remained here and asked what makes a good resveratrol product, what makes good service, what is it that folks want to see. I have gotten feedback, made some changes and folks simply appreciate that.

It's not hard to do. But if you are set in your ways with one 100mg capsule, or enjoy bashing new products because they are made for a different class of customers than your own... instead of asking what people want, well... you may not feel appreciated. Nobody likes folks who consistently criticize, specially when science is not determined the true amount needed for folks.

A

#40 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:51 PM

Maybe it would be better if the whole resveratrol section would be blocked for indexing by google so it can't become a place for seo purposes.(with a disclaimer that the section isn't going to be indexed by google)
I'm really fed up with this whole resveratrol issue (not that anybody cares) It is one of the reasons that i don't want to become a paying member again until the troubles around this are solved. I must agree with crep that the board is heavily biased towards revgenetics and resveratrol in general.Information is picked up selectively, dimissing what doesn't fit the paradigm and accepting what can be used to keep the resveratrol mania going.Maybe it would be better to find a sponsor in the car industry :-) Probably hard to find nowadays.



drmz,

as you know this section of the board happens to be the "Resveratrol" section, and I am paying for the banner and asking for folks help here to make better products. We were not here in 2006, another company was and they basically quit answering the hard questions and ran away from this board.

I have remained here and asked what makes a good resveratrol product, what makes good service, what is it that folks want to see. I have gotten feedback, made some changes and folks simply appreciate that.

It's not hard to do. But if you are set in your ways with one 100mg capsule, or enjoy bashing new products because they are made for a different class of customers than your own... instead of asking what people want, well... you may not feel appreciated. Nobody likes folks who consistently criticize, specially when science is not determined the true amount needed for folks.

A


Don't feel personally offended by my post i don't critize any of your behaviour. I just say having a resveratrol section or supplement forum sponsored by a supplement company isn't the best thing you can have if you want to keep things as objective as possible.Maybe block it from indexing by google would cut the marketing bullshit back. Or a total ban on naming product names or linking to product sites (what do you think of product X or product Y) .There needs to be an open discussion about this, else every topic will end up like this.

You're indeed a good entrepreneur, putting all in your pills what the folks ask you. I would do exactly the same if i had a company.

#41 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,941 posts
  • 1,615
  • Location:New York

Posted 20 February 2009 - 02:59 PM

Why leave longevinex out of the topic title if that is the product to be discussed in the topic ?


Sardi searches for his product on the net and regularly threatens lawsuits if he doesn't like what he sees. It's a pain to deal with and I'd like to spare the Institute the trouble.

#42 Marco P.

  • Guest
  • 7 posts
  • 0

Posted 20 February 2009 - 03:11 PM

Thanks Crep.

I arrived at the same conclusion the more I read.

Caution is critical in using a new, not totally researched, substance.

Mark


Marco, IMPORTANT. Before giving it to your wife, read the entire breast cancer caused by resveratrol thread. If I were you, I wouldn't allow your wife to take it, but read and decide for yourself.

Cheers
Crep



#43 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 20 February 2009 - 03:16 PM

Why leave longevinex out of the topic title if that is the product to be discussed in the topic ?


Sardi searches for his product on the net and regularly threatens lawsuits if he doesn't like what he sees. It's a pain to deal with and I'd like to spare the Institute the trouble.



I thought we in the Netherlands were the only ones having problems with free speech at the moment. Now i get it, censorship is to blame on Bill Sardi. Thanks for the rescue Maxwatt .
Is there no part in the user agreement that makes a topic poster legally responsible for the post instead of Imminst being legally responsible ?

#44 hmm

  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • 2

Posted 20 February 2009 - 03:33 PM

One of the numerous ironies in this discussion is that even though Bill/Crep/jiggy is practicing the fine art of trolling, that doesn't mean that Bill/crep/jiggy isn't pretty close to correct in his assessment of what comprises a healthy dosage. Long* could well be a brilliant formulation in terms of ingredients and dosage. It's just that the message seems to get a little bit lost in the midst of these labyrinthine posting schemes...

#45 Marco P.

  • Guest
  • 7 posts
  • 0

Posted 20 February 2009 - 03:57 PM

No post. Comments already entered. sorry!

Edited by Marco P., 20 February 2009 - 03:59 PM.


#46 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 20 February 2009 - 04:19 PM

One of the numerous ironies in this discussion is that even though Bill/Crep/jiggy is practicing the fine art of trolling, that doesn't mean that Bill/crep/jiggy isn't pretty close to correct in his assessment of what comprises a healthy dosage. Long* could well be a brilliant formulation in terms of ingredients and dosage. It's just that the message seems to get a little bit lost in the midst of these labyrinthine posting schemes...


If bill stopped using licaps and you are uncomfortable that he is using a powder formulation instead of a liquid formulation, (and you want a supplement with Quercetin like Crep does), you can certainly try this one:

http://www.lef.org/V...t...3E&key=info

Again, I personally will not have our company make anything under 250mg. In my opinion I simply do not think it's very useful. However, if you corner me in an elevator telling me you only want 100mg, and ask me where to get a 100mg capsule if I can't produce it myself... even after I explained that I don't believe such small dose is worth while, it's not a hard thing for me to point to a competitor's product if I am asked to recommend a strictly 100mg capsule.

Who else in the industry would do this? Certainly not my competitors. While they are trying to produce a one capsule fits all, I am making different products and dosages for different people.

A

#47 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,254 posts
  • 2,002
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 20 February 2009 - 05:18 PM

Maxwatt was correct to remove the product name from the title. If I had the time, this thread, and all of those that are a discussion of a single commercial product would be deleted immediately, before they even had a chance to devolve. There will be changes soon.

#48 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 20 February 2009 - 05:36 PM

Maxwatt was correct to remove the product name from the title. If I had the time, this thread, and all of those that are a discussion of a single commercial product would be deleted immediately, before they even had a chance to devolve. There will be changes soon.



Hopefully the revgenetics and tween products will be removed from topic titles as well. Glad to hear changes are coming....

http://www.imminst.o.....=+revgenetics

http://www.imminst.o.....ghlite=+tween

#49 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 20 February 2009 - 05:59 PM

Maxwatt was correct to remove the product name from the title. If I had the time, this thread, and all of those that are a discussion of a single commercial product would be deleted immediately, before they even had a chance to devolve. There will be changes soon.



Hopefully the revgenetics and tween products will be removed from topic titles as well. Glad to hear changes are coming....

http://www.imminst.o.....=+revgenetics

http://www.imminst.o.....ghlite=+tween



tween 80 is not a trademark and other companies are free to come out with there own products using it, like the CoQ10 with tween 80 products already have... but I agree with you on the company names...

Regarding the company names... I would go further than you drmz. I would take out all of the names, including those in posts... Since I never post my company name, you would be looking for all companys that manufactures res supplements.

Folks posting company names are really pushing SEO more than giving info, so I think it may cut down on some of the attempts to advertise for a company.

Again, I never post our company name, so if folks want to talk about res without naming a company... I am here to say that it's a simple thing to do, just follow my lead.

A

#50 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 20 February 2009 - 06:09 PM

What's wrong with discussing a single product? Mind, I thought you were a proponent of free speech.

#51 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 20 February 2009 - 06:22 PM

I believe there are some rules already mentioned a while back by Mind (April, 2007):

I can see this fitting in quite nicely with the rules below, I don't see an issue:
http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=15491

Officially, no commercial spam or advertising is allowed in forum posts.

The Imminst forums used to be like the wild west and anyone could post anything. Once the membership became larger supplement companies realized there was a profitable market developing (pretty obvious). Some started posting commercial messages in the forums. Soon there were flame wars over who had the best products and best prices and the forums deteriorated into a chaos of name-calling and threats. Therefore Imminst developed a policy of no commercial spam or advertising in the forums. If a company wanted to have a presence at Imminst they would now have to pay for a forum banner ad (100.00/month), a commercial signature (125.00/month) or global site sponsorship (300.00/month). Following this, it appeared that unscrupulous companies started using dummy accounts to try and carry out viral marketing in the forums. They would pretend to be regular members and either bash their competitors or pump up their own products. It has been tough to deal with. There are legitimate products and services related to life extension that deserve discussion in the forums and links to company websites are often the best way to start the conversation and point to relevant information. Imminst Navigators are well schooled in spotting legitimate discussion vs. commercial profiteering. Threads that get too out-of-hand and turn into an advertisement for one particular company will be shut down. Having a screen name that is also the name of a company is a form of advertising and will not be tolerated.

So if you see someone who has a commercial signature in their posts, please contact a Navigator. Currently there is only one company that is advertising with a commercial signature (selling Resveratrol). Also at the bottom of each page, you will notice an Imminst Sponsor: Canaca (has been a great hosting service for Immisnt thus far), and Ads by Google.

And lastly, as spelled out in the user agreement, ImmInst cannot be held responsible for problems associated with any ideas or suggestions made and found in the forums and/or in any correspondence in association with ImmInst (including advertisements). All recommendations for supplement intake, bodily enhancement and/or augmentation, etc. should be considered with caution. Individuals are advised to seek advice from a qualified physician before acting upon any recommendations



#52 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,941 posts
  • 1,615
  • Location:New York

Posted 20 February 2009 - 06:40 PM

It is certainly possible to discuss ingredients, formulations and dosages without specifically mentioning the manufacture's name.

It should also be possible for someone to not post the same misinformation repeatedly while ignoring contrary evidence, and flaming posters who point this out. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not free speech.

#53 suspire

  • Guest
  • 583 posts
  • 10

Posted 20 February 2009 - 07:22 PM

One of the numerous ironies in this discussion is that even though Bill/Crep/jiggy is practicing the fine art of trolling, that doesn't mean that Bill/crep/jiggy isn't pretty close to correct in his assessment of what comprises a healthy dosage. Long* could well be a brilliant formulation in terms of ingredients and dosage. It's just that the message seems to get a little bit lost in the midst of these labyrinthine posting schemes...


If bill stopped using licaps and you are uncomfortable that he is using a powder formulation instead of a liquid formulation, (and you want a supplement with Quercetin like Crep does), you can certainly try this one:

http://www.lef.org/V...t...3E&key=info

Again, I personally will not have our company make anything under 250mg. In my opinion I simply do not think it's very useful. However, if you corner me in an elevator telling me you only want 100mg, and ask me where to get a 100mg capsule if I can't produce it myself... even after I explained that I don't believe such small dose is worth while, it's not a hard thing for me to point to a competitor's product if I am asked to recommend a strictly 100mg capsule.

Who else in the industry would do this? Certainly not my competitors. While they are trying to produce a one capsule fits all, I am making different products and dosages for different people.

A


Here is where I disagree with you: Since you've based your philosophy on the demands of the consumer (rightly so), I think if it doesn't cost you more or cause unnecessary difficulty for you, I think you should create a 100 mg resveratrol product. There seems to be a genuine demand for it, especially from the Longy-followers and it appears you can make a product of equal quality (in terms of resveratrol), while undercutting the price. Why give up the ground to your competitors? You may not believe such a small dose is worth it, but clearly there is a demand for it, even if the science does not seem to support their belief (as of now--maybe it will later).

Then folks could buy your 100 mg product and combine it with more cheaply bought IP6, Quercetin and Vitamin D (all easily available at various stores such as iherb or Vitamin Shoppe). They would be getting the same Longy-formulation at a cheaper price (and more importantly) personally controlled levels (maybe they want more IP6 than Longy has or less Quercetin, etc) AND they would know the sources of all the component ingredients. So unless they think Longy manufactures "magic resveratrol" that only works in their specially formulated capsules, there is nothing left to argue. Anyone claiming that their own personally created formulation doesn't give them the same effect as Longy are either on some sort of placebo/psychosomatic high or shills for Longy, unless of course it is found that the resveratrol they are buying from you (or any other competitor that also manufactures a 100 mg dose) is deficient in quality (which I don't see to be the case) or the other ingredients they want to mix in (IP6, Quercetin, etc) are from inferior sources. That said, I think the chances of ending up with a product of inferior quality is more probable from Longy than buying the components individually, because Longy practices all sorts of obfuscation in its formula and when companies put together these master-mixes, I find they tend to cut corners compared to buying the components individually. Just a personal observation on the last.

#54 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,254 posts
  • 2,002
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 20 February 2009 - 11:23 PM

JLL, we have a free speech forum for mostly un-moderated discussions.

We have a couple freedoms at work here. Freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and I think we do a fairly good job of mingling these here. When a group of people get together and form an organization, they should be free to set their own rules for what goes on within the organization (freedom of assembly). The founding members of Imminst set-up a constitution which they thought would help fulfill the mission and we follow it. They thought maintaining a respect for free speech within the organization was worthwhile and important, even if it is not directly essential to fulfilling the mission. Therefore, the free speech forum. All other forums are subject to moderation, the most common form revolves around spam and viral marketing.

#55 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 732 posts
  • 88
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 21 February 2009 - 01:12 AM

So if you see someone who has a commercial signature in their posts, please contact a Navigator. Currently there is only one company that is advertising with a commercial signature (selling Resveratrol).


Obviously Anthony would like all other brand names removed so that his company along with his company logo in his avatar are all that remains on these posts.

I don't think Joe is pushing Longevinex, but has the same questions many of us have. It is unfortunate that Dr. Sinclair won't make a statement about resveratrol in general , that if it is of a certain pureness, then that is what is really important. But when it is widely known that he took Longevinex for a while before making his own, it gave an endorsement to the product. Another top researcher recently on 60 Minutes also stated he thought the blend in that product likely has a positive synergistic effect.
Again, it would be nice if a few respected PhD level researchers printed an ad somewhere stating that these different brands show similar effects. Consumer Research only tested to see if the resveratrol levels were as high as stated on the label, and that doesn't go far enough.

Or does it?

#56 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,254 posts
  • 2,002
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 21 February 2009 - 01:36 AM

What Anthony would like and what happens are different things. Any advertiser can place a banner ad. $100 per month and must be approved by the Board. Anthony paid in advance for 2009 for the banner in the resv forum. Other forums are currently open and other resv sellers could apply to place a banner ad in those and have an exclusive presence.

Anthony is an Imminst member separate from his business relationship. He has helped other members and contributed to other discussions besides resv. It has been hard to enforce impartiality in the resv forum with the current banner ad and Anthony being a member. Perhaps he is using creative methods to benefit his business, however, to his credit, whenever I or the Navs have warned him about direct or viral marketing and required certain posts to be removed, or to not use his company name, he has always complied.

#57 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 21 February 2009 - 04:18 AM

I don't think Joe is pushing Longevinex, but has the same questions many of us have. It is unfortunate that Dr. Sinclair won't make a statement about resveratrol in general , that if it is of a certain pureness, then that is what is really important. But when it is widely known that he took Longevinex for a while before making his own, it gave an endorsement to the product. Another top researcher recently on 60 Minutes also stated he thought the blend in that product likely has a positive synergistic effect.
Again, it would be nice if a few respected PhD level researchers printed an ad somewhere stating that these different brands show similar effects. Consumer Research only tested to see if the resveratrol levels were as high as stated on the label, and that doesn't go far enough.

Or does it?

Don't expect a statement about resveratrol from Sinclair. He has complex business relations regarding it.

It might be nice if a few respected PhD level researchers printed such an ad, but that would require some very sophisticated testing to prove bioequivalence, and no one has a financial impetus to do that.

The Consumer Labs report doesn't go far enough. I do not doubt that all the major brands of resveratrol contain the amount of resveratrol on the label, but other things are also important. Primarily, are there any dangerous contaminants? Heavy metals, organic contaminants, microorganisms? What is the particle size and size distribution? What is the crystal morphology? These impact the bioavailability of the drug. You want to know the quality of every batch of resveratrol that the producer obtains from their suppliers. Some companies will trust the supplier to analyze their own material, while the more responsible companies will have every batch analyzed by a third party analytical lab. Only one company does this that I'm aware of. I won't mention their name, but some of you already suspect that I'm a "shill" for them, since I'm an ImmInst member. For those who claim that, does it occur to you that many of us like a certain company because they are the only ones who address all of the important issues, behave ethically, and don't try to distort the science to their advantage? Just a thought...

-niner, PhD. (really.)

#58 joe57777

  • Guest
  • 74 posts
  • 1
  • Location:NY

Posted 23 February 2009 - 08:01 AM

Again, I personally will not have our company make anything under 250mg. In my opinion I simply do not think it's very useful. However, if you corner me in an elevator telling me you only want 100mg, and ask me where to get a 100mg capsule if I can't produce it myself... even after I explained that I don't believe such small dose is worth while, it's not a hard thing for me to point to a competitor's product if I am asked to recommend a strictly 100mg capsule.

Who else in the industry would do this? Certainly not my competitors. While they are trying to produce a one capsule fits all, I am making different products and dosages for different people.

A




Anthony,

I am having a very difficult time trying to understand your reasoning here regarding dosage. Now granted, a set dosage has not been determined in Humans yet. However, you seem to feel that a dosage under 250mg is "not very useful in your opinion". Everyone is entitled to their opinion Anthony. However, do you expect other people as well as myself to trust an "opinion"? An Opinion based on what? We need to ask: 1). Does Anthony have any "proof" or "theory based on some type of experiment where he tested 250mg of Resveratrol against than 100mg of Resveratrol? 2). Was Anthony an assistant on the original Resveratrol mice experiment team or was he connected with any of the Resveratrol experiments? If the answer is "no" to both questions, then Anthony, why should anyone believe that 100mg of Resveratrol is not enough for daily use?

Please help us understand.

And I wrote this with out mentioning any brands! (lol)


Just fixed the quotation markers -- Max

Edited by maxwatt, 23 February 2009 - 12:24 PM.


#59 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,941 posts
  • 1,615
  • Location:New York

Posted 23 February 2009 - 01:42 PM

Again, I personally will not have our company make anything under 250mg. In my opinion I simply do not think it's very useful. However, if you corner me in an elevator telling me you only want 100mg, and ask me where to get a 100mg capsule if I can't produce it myself... even after I explained that I don't believe such small dose is worth while, it's not a hard thing for me to point to a competitor's product if I am asked to recommend a strictly 100mg capsule.

Who else in the industry would do this? Certainly not my competitors. While they are trying to produce a one capsule fits all, I am making different products and dosages for different people.

A




Anthony,

I am having a very difficult time trying to understand your reasoning here regarding dosage. Now granted, a set dosage has not been determined in Humans yet. However, you seem to feel that a dosage under 250mg is "not very useful in your opinion". Everyone is entitled to their opinion Anthony. However, do you expect other people as well as myself to trust an "opinion"? An Opinion based on what? We need to ask: 1). Does Anthony have any "proof" or "theory based on some type of experiment where he tested 250mg of Resveratrol against than 100mg of Resveratrol? 2). Was Anthony an assistant on the original Resveratrol mice experiment team or was he connected with any of the Resveratrol experiments? If the answer is "no" to both questions, then Anthony, why should anyone believe that 100mg of Resveratrol is not enough for daily use?

Please help us understand.

And I wrote this with out mentioning any brands! (lol)


Just fixed the quotation markers -- Max


Forgive me if I butt in, but determining optimum dosage level is complicated. 100 mg may well be good dose for some people. Resveratrol is glucuronidated and sulfonated by CYP, UGT and SULT enzymes, and we know that different people have different genetically determined phenotypes of these enzymes. Some groups, particularly East Asians, tend to have a variant version of several of these enzymes that is much less efficient than is typical of most Caucasians. The result is that they can require much less of certain drugs to obtain the same effect. See citations below for some studies.

One of the PhDs who contribute to this forum performed an independent dose-versus-blood-serum-level study of resveratrol with several subjects; the single Asian subject obtained a serum level roughly twice that seen with a given dose than seen for the other subjects. If you search for hedgehog's posts you can find this, as well as references to Boocock's study on human pharmokinetics of resveratrol (more on that later.)

My point is basically "different strokes for different folks." This applies also to combining with other phytochemicals to block the actions of these enzymes in order to obtain higher serum levels of resveratrol. For some it is not necessary, and may have unwanted side effects in others. 100 mg could be a helpful dose for many, but is quite probably inadequate for others.

Boocock's paper (abstract below) indicated a non-linearly increasing dose-response curve showing, as one would expect, greater serum levels for a greater dose. The serum levels they obtained even with a 5 gram dose were inadequate to obtain the cancer preventative effects noted in vitro. Sinclair's studies have found a roughly linear dose-effect response in rodents, and in the human subjects in Phase II studies measuring blood sugar. Toxicity studies have found resveratrol to be well-tolerated with few side effects. None of the many subjects in Sirtris' study showed tendon or joint pain, the main complaint in these forums with high-dose and even low doses of resveratrol. Sirtris was testing with 2.5 and 5 grams. It seems possible that other supplements such as are more likely to be taken by contributors to this forum may have caused an interaction leading to these effects.

In view of the above, it's not unreasonable to conclude that the higher the resveratrol dose, the better the effects will be. Attempts to extrapolate Sinclair's and Auwerx's rodent studies to humans led to an estimate of 250 to 400 mg as the minimal dose to achieve the beneficial effects seen. This was a consensus opinion reached by contributors to these forums in 2007 and early 2008. (The quality of posts to this forum have declined considerably since then, BTW. There was a collaborative atmosphere as opposed to the oppositional attitude that has arisen.) Certainly many contributors to this forum find benefits and no problems with 250 or 400 mg, and even with much higher doses.

Should Anthony market a 100 mg pill? I'll let him explain that. Again. I haven't seen a 100 mg capsule of 99% resveratrol without additives like IP6 or quercetin, but then I haven't looked.

FAROOQ, S. (1998) Ethnicity and clozapine metabolism (letter). British Journal of Psychiatry, 173, 87.
JANN, M.W., CHANG, W. H., LAM, Y., et al(1993) Comparison of haloperidol and reduced haloperidol plasma levels in four different ethnic populations. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 16, 193 -202.[CrossRef]
LIN, K.-M. & FINDER, E. (1983) Neuroleptic dosage for Asians. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 490 -491.[Free Full Text]
LIN, K.-M., POLAND, R.E., NUCCIO, I., et al (1989) A longitudinal assessment of haloperidol doses and serum concentrations in Asian and Caucasian schizophrenia patients. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 1307 -1311.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
MASELLIS, M., BASILE, V. S., ÖZDEMIR, V., et al (2000) Pharmacogenetics of antipsychotic treatment: lessons learned from clozapine. Biological Psychiatry, 47, 252 -266.[CrossRef][Medline]


Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 16, 1246, June 1, 2007. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-07-0022
Phase I Dose Escalation Pharmacokinetic Study in Healthy Volunteers of Resveratrol, a Potential Cancer Chemopreventive Agent


David J. Boocock1, Guy E.S. Faust1, Ketan R. Patel1, Anna M. Schinas2, Victoria A. Brown1, Murray P. Ducharme2, Tristan D. Booth3, James A. Crowell4, Marjorie Perloff4, Andreas J. Gescher1, William P. Steward1 and Dean E. Brenner5
1 Cancer Biomarkers and Prevention Group, Department of Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine, Leicester University, Leicester, United Kingdom; 2 MDS Pharma Services; 3 Royalmount Pharma, Montreal, Canada; 4 Chemopreventive Agent Development Research Group, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland; and 5 Departments of Internal Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Michigan Medical School and VA Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Requests for reprints: Andreas J. Gescher, Department of Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Robert Kilpatrick Clinical Sciences Building, Leicester University, Leicester LE2 7LX, United Kingdom; Phone: 44-116-223-1856; Fax: 44-116-223-1855. E-mail: ag15@le.ac.uk

The red grape constituent resveratrol possesses cancer chemopreventive properties in rodents. The hypothesis was tested that, in healthy humans, p.o. administration of resveratrol is safe and results in measurable plasma levels of resveratrol. A phase I study of oral resveratrol (single doses of 0.5, 1, 2.5, or 5 g) was conducted in 10 healthy volunteers per dose level. Resveratrol and its metabolites were identified in plasma and urine by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and quantitated by high-performance liquid chromatography-UV. Consumption of resveratrol did not cause serious adverse events. Resveratrol and six metabolites were recovered from plasma and urine. Peak plasma levels of resveratrol at the highest dose were 539 ± 384 ng/mL (2.4 µmol/L, mean ± SD; n = 10), which occurred 1.5 h post-dose. Peak levels of two monoglucuronides and resveratrol-3-sulfate were 3- to 8-fold higher. The area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) values for resveratrol-3-sulfate and resveratrol monoglucuronides were up to 23 times greater than those of resveratrol. Urinary excretion of resveratrol and its metabolites was rapid, with 77% of all urinary agent-derived species excreted within 4 h after the lowest dose. Cancer chemopreventive effects of resveratrol in cells in vitro require levels of at least 5 µmol/L. The results presented here intimate that consumption of high-dose resveratrol might be insufficient to elicit systemic levels commensurate with cancer chemopreventive efficacy. However, the high systemic levels of resveratrol conjugate metabolites suggest that their cancer chemopreventive properties warrant investigation. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(6):1246–52)

Edited by maxwatt, 23 February 2009 - 01:58 PM.


Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#60 fatboy

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 0

Posted 24 February 2009 - 03:04 AM

While they are trying to produce a one capsule fits all, I am making different products and dosages for different people.


Indeed.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users