63 replies to this topic

[bluemoon]

Blood glucose levels can show quite a bit of variation, depending on exercise and diet in general. Without more than two measurements, this shows little, unles the change is dramatic and consistent.

There is an intermediate stage of graying of hair, in which the hair starts as gray, and as it grows, turns black. On can have many hairs that are gray on the tips, and black at the root. Eventually, gray predominates. So it is quite possible this is what you are seeing, gray hairs seeming to be turning black, but it is a normal part of the progression toward gray hair.

resveratrol denier!!

[maxwatt]

Blood glucose levels can show quite a bit of variation, depending on exercise and diet in general. Without more than two measurements, this shows little, unles the change is dramatic and consistent.

There is an intermediate stage of graying of hair, in which the hair starts as gray, and as it grows, turns black. On can have many hairs that are gray on the tips, and black at the root. Eventually, gray predominates. So it is quite possible this is what you are seeing, gray hairs seeming to be turning black, but it is a normal part of the progression toward gray hair.

resveratrol denier!!

Evidence based proof versus hearsay wishing.

Edited by Matt, 22 May 2009 - 01:08 PM.
trimmed post

[bluemoon]

Evidence based proof versus hearsay wishing.

Was just a little joke.

But you wrote...
There seems to be a history of Longytudx ads misstating what researchers have actually said

That might be correct, but where is the evidence based proof? can you give a couple of examples?

[drtom]

Greetings,

I have been taking 250mg/day (50%) since July 2007.
Noted decreased fasting blood glucose and darker moustache (!).
Obtained photo (14/05/09) of another facial hair reverting from white to black.

Can't say for sure if resveratrol is the cause but, as it is the only supplement I take, it is likely to be responsible.
Unless, of course, the whiskers are simply spontaneously turning from white to black.
If anyone knows the rate at which this is likely to occur I'd be glad to know.

Cheers,

Dr Tom

Blood glucose levels can show quite a bit of variation, depending on exercise and diet in general. Without more than two measurements, this shows little, unles the change is dramatic and consistent.

There is an intermediate stage of graying of hair, in which the hair starts as gray, and as it grows, turns black. On can have many hairs that are gray on the tips, and black at the root. Eventually, gray predominates. So it is quite possible this is what you are seeing, gray hairs seeming to be turning black, but it is a normal part of the progression toward gray hair.

OK, thanks for that, Maxwatt. I'll keep an eye out to see if that particular whisker changes it's "mind" again and reverts to white.
It's easy to spot because it is right on the upper edge of my moustache.
I'm still keeping an open mind.
The thing that puzzles me is that my moustache seems to have darkened overall since I started resveratrol, wheras I would have expected it to keep getting whiter as I aged (I am now 52).

I did get the blood glucose repeated 3 weeks later and it was almost identical (actually 0.1 mM lower). The reduction was about 25%, so quite a lot.

Cheers,

DrTom

[maxwatt]

Evidence based proof versus hearsay wishing.

Was just a little joke.

But you wrote...
There seems to be a history of Longytudx ads misstating what researchers have actually said

That might be correct, but where is the evidence based proof? can you give a couple of examples?

We can start with the marketing claims from two years ago that resveratrol was highly unstable and had to be sealed in nitrogen in a gel cap, and total disregard of papers showing just how stable resveratrol is.

[Anthony_Loera]

Yes,

they have even moved away now from using the licaps capsule,
while at the same time maintaining the web advertisement that says that their capsules maintain resveratrol 6x better than regular capsules, and showing the Licaps charts.

Folks seeing this, will likely be misled that the data in the charts represents their dry powder capsules, when the chart does not. The chart actually represents the Licaps product, that they do not sell anymore.

That's like advertising a car seat that shows that it's 5 point seat belts can save children in auto accidents better than lap belts, then when you decide to buy the car seat you just read about online, you find out that it only comes with a lap belt... and that the company never told you that the 5 point seat belt option was discontinued a year ago.

A

[Anthony_Loera]

Here is some more Holmes:

From December 2008:

http://www.imminst.o...t...&pid=285315

and

http://www.imminst.o...t...&pid=285564

[bluemoon]

We can start with the marketing claims from two years ago that resveratrol was highly unstable and had to be sealed in nitrogen in a gel cap, and total disregard of papers showing just how stable resveratrol is.

The odd thing is that Sinclair said on NPR in November 2003 that the samples he bought and analyzed were worthless. Yet then I read recently on another thread that Sinclair found that only Longevinex kept the resveratrol stable at the time, so that seems like a contradiction, or I'm missing something. By the time I started getting Longy, I was pretty sure that most resveratrol was stable, and I think the Longy claim had been carefully worded.

I also don't care that they claim many extra genes are activated because it isn't known if that means anything significant, and for now, I assume not. I don't think companies should advertise like that, but it still seems like a true statement.

However, you said Longeviex has a history of misstating what researchers have actually said. That was what I was asking about. The links Anthony provided don't seem clear to me. One said they lied, while another said they didn't. If Anthony has time, could I be directed to a specific misstatement or a specific argument rather than to an entire page?

More to the point, do you (maxwatt) have evidence that the Longy ad on Google Video with the U Wisconsin researcher is misleading? That clip shows him say "seems"' to be synergistic, not definately so.

Not trying to play lawyer, just curious.

Edited by Holmes, 21 May 2009 - 01:28 AM.

[Anthony_Loera]

Holmes,

you need to read the links I sent you, it appears you simply don't want to consider that the research misstated historically. That is the proof you wanted correct?

As far as Dr. Sinclair... the resveratrol being produced at that time was not very good. No decently priced high purity resveratrol existed, and until late 2007 we started to see some very dramatic increases in quality and purity for resveratrol. I know this, because we tested alot of resveratrol (and more than half of the folks we tested we not good quality).

Remember Longevinex, back in the day (2003-2008) was of a 50% purity in nitrogen filled capsules called licaps. Now they don't even state the purity on their box so folks aren't sure what purity they are buying, they don't use Licaps, and they use a dry powder in a vegetarian capsule.

So if you are arguing for Longevinex and resveratrol stability using Licaps, then... why is it that they changed the capsule, stop using Licaps, and still advertise using the Licaps charts? Do you think this is ok? Again, the research performed on Licaps capsules in the chart is being used for non-licaps capsules.

If you decide to think that this is ok, then you are turning a blind eye to other discrepancies shown per the link given before. If you say it's ok, and accept these discrepancies, then people will start to doubt your credibility in posts, don't you think?

A

[bluemoon]

Holmes,

you need to read the links I sent you, it appears you simply don't want to consider that the research misstated historically. That is the proof you wanted correct?

As far as Dr. Sinclair... the resveratrol being produced at that time was not very good. No decently priced high purity resveratrol existed, and until late 2007 we started to see some very dramatic increases in quality and purity for resveratrol. I know this, because we tested alot of resveratrol (and more than half of the folks we tested we not good quality).

Remember Longevinex, back in the day (2003-2008) was of a 50% purity in nitrogen filled capsules called licaps. Now they don't even state the purity on their box so folks aren't sure what purity they are buying, they don't use Licaps, and they use a dry powder in a vegetarian capsule.

So if you are arguing for Longevinex and resveratrol stability using Licaps, then... why is it that they changed the capsule, stop using Licaps, and still advertise using the Licaps charts? Do you think this is ok? Again, the research performed on Licaps capsules in the chart is being used for non-licaps capsules.

If you decide to think that this is ok, then you are turning a blind eye to other discrepancies shown per the link given before. If you say it's ok, and accept these discrepancies, then people will start to doubt your credibility in posts, don't you think?

A

Anthony,

My credibility is fine. I didn't turn a blind eye and said "one person said Longevinex lied, while another said he did not." The second link isn't clear. maxwatt says the press release was "polemic" and that might be true. It would help if maxwatt came up with what researchers/study he thought Longgevinex misstated. maxwatt did bring up stability, and when I saw the site over a year ago, it said it was the "first" to provide stability, so must have changed it. I couldn't find the lipcap charts, and maybe they took that down when changes were made a few months ago. I don't think they should make a claim and use different capsules, yet the statement I read is that the capsules used wouldn't differ. I didn't notice they stopped showing 50% purity, and while it helps consumers, don't think they have to. Competitors can also point that out.

Anthony, your website has stated in a FAQ that 100mg isn't enough, yet that is far from clear, as the University of Wisconsin study suggeted. (I just looked for your exact quote, and it looks like that section has been removed. It was up after the lower dose stduy came out.)

You wrote above "As far as Dr. Sinclair... the resveratrol being produced at that time was not very good. No decently priced high purity resveratrol existed,..."

But that isn't correct, which is why I brought it up. Sinclair did find Longevinex retained the resveratrol early on, even if 50% purity. Then he started taking 320mg/day of that until he started taking his own.

[2tender]

Sure, its important to know what these guys are taking, but, what they are currently using may be different from original observations. The current consensus is that 250-500 mgs dosage is optimal for all intents, is should be a micronized, low emodin, highest purity product, preferably emulsified. I highly doubt most of these guys are ingesting anything less than pure and non-compounded Resveratrol. Until and unless someone has personal knowledge of their intake we are left to think for ourselves and draw our own conclusions based on subjective personal bioassays and their non-scientific results. Hopefully there will be more scientific data with which to draw conclusions.

[bluemoon]

Sure, its important to know what these guys are taking, but, what they are currently using may be different from original observations. The current consensus is that 250-500 mgs dosage is optimal for all intents, is should be a micronized, low emodin, highest purity product, preferably emulsified. I highly doubt most of these guys are ingesting anything less than pure and non-compounded Resveratrol. Until and unless someone has personal knowledge of their intake we are left to think for ourselves and draw our own conclusions based on subjective personal bioassays and their non-scientific results. Hopefully there will be more scientific data with which to draw conclusions.

But the U Wisconsin study suggests benefit in lower doses than used in Sinclair's study. That is, under the 5mg/kg, or 250-500mg range.

We still don't know the advantages of micronized, and 50% is fine as long as the person doesn't have any digestive issues with it.

Kurzweil says he takes 100mg, which is a third less than the Sinclair range. He sells Ray and Terrys which is 50%, but he didn't mention the brand he takes. Kurzweil is Mr. Supplement, and I think he goes over what he takes very careully. But he may not be mazimizing, and waiting for more information -- who knows.

[maxwatt]

Sure, its important to know what these guys are taking, but, what they are currently using may be different from original observations. The current consensus is that 250-500 mgs dosage is optimal for all intents, is should be a micronized, low emodin, highest purity product, preferably emulsified. I highly doubt most of these guys are ingesting anything less than pure and non-compounded Resveratrol. Until and unless someone has personal knowledge of their intake we are left to think for ourselves and draw our own conclusions based on subjective personal bioassays and their non-scientific results. Hopefully there will be more scientific data with which to draw conclusions.

But the U Wisconsin study suggests benefit in lower doses than used in Sinclair's study. That is, under the 5mg/kg, or 250-500mg range.

We still don't know the advantages of micronized, and 50% is fine as long as the person doesn't have any digestive issues with it.

Kurzweil says he takes 100mg, which is a third less than the Sinclair range. He sells Ray and Terrys which is 50%, but he didn't mention the brand he takes. Kurzweil is Mr. Supplement, and I think he goes over what he takes very careully. But he may not be mazimizing, and waiting for more information -- who knows.

We do know the advantage of micronized; the peak serum level is reached more quickly than with non micronized, and the level is higher. The area under the curve is the same, however. In so far as minimal serum levels may be required for some of resveratrol's effects, this is an advantage. To some degree, higher doses of a non-micronized but pure product could make up for the difference.

50% resveratrol in any but very small doses is to be avoided, IMO. Continued exposure to emodin could lead to ulceration even if symptoms are not experienced, and other substances in 50%, such as physcion, are problematical.

Edited by maxwatt, 23 May 2009 - 12:11 PM.

[bluemoon]

We do know the advantage of micronized; the peak serum level is reached more quickly than with non micronized, and the level is higher. The area under the curve is the same, however. In so far as minimal serum levels may be required for some of resveratrol's effects, this is an advantage. To some degree, higher doses of a non-micronized but pure product could make up for the difference.

---
But is the difference that significant? This is a similar question as with respect to using quercetin with resveratrol and the U wisconsin statement about the possible synergy. Is that synergy all that significant?


50% resveratrol in any but very small doses is to be avoided, IMO. Continued exposure to emodin could lead to ulceration even if symptoms are not experienced, and other substances in 50%, such as physcion, are problematical.
----
Longevinex says it doesnt contain emodin. And what would you say is a "very small dose"? I do tell people who ask, that if going for 500mg, to use 98%.

Still,

1) If 50% is really a poor product, why would RevGenetics continue selling that along with 98%?
2) Was Sinclair taking a risk when using Longevinex prior to using his own?
3) Again with Kurzweil, isn't it odd that he would market and I assume take 50% if a risky product?

Edited by Holmes, 23 May 2009 - 04:54 PM.

[maxwatt]

We do know the advantage of micronized; the peak serum level is reached more quickly than with non micronized, and the level is higher. The area under the curve is the same, however. In so far as minimal serum levels may be required for some of resveratrol's effects, this is an advantage. To some degree, higher doses of a non-micronized but pure product could make up for the difference.

---
But is the difference that significant? This is a similar question as with respect to using quercetin with resveratrol and the U wisconsin statement about the possible synergy. Is that synergy all that significant?

??? Say wha? IF you get a higher peak faster in blood serum levels, and a minimum level in the blood is needed to, say, kill cancer cells ... or any other possible effect..., then the difference is significant, Q.E.D. Quercetin? It has been combined in formulations because it inhibits sulfonation, resulting in higher serum levels as does micronized. Is this significant? Could be.

50% resveratrol in any but very small doses is to be avoided, IMO. Continued exposure to emodin could lead to ulceration even if symptoms are not experienced, and other substances in 50%, such as physcion, are problematical.
----
Longevinex says it doesnt contain emodin. And what would you say is a "very small dose"? I do tell people who ask, that if going for 500mg, to use 98%.

Right-o. In fact 99% might be better. There can be enough emodin even in 98% to cause the runs even at a 500 mg dose.

Still,

1) If 50% is really a poor product, why would RevvGenetics continue selling that along with 98%?
2) Was Sinclair taking a risk when using Longgevinex prior to using his own?
3) Again with Kurzweil, isn't it odd that he would market and I assume take 50% if a risky product?

True, Longoevinex no longer contains emodin, but I was not refering t any particular brand. I cannot tell you for sure what a "safe" dose of emodin is, but it is a bowel irritant, and some doctors and researchers are concerned about long term effects.

Point 1, why does RevvGenetics still sell 50%? There must be a demand for it. They are a business. I do know that 50% makes a wonderful fungicide: I dissolved some in 25% alcohol and sprayed it on my rhododendrons, and it killed the virus that ailed them. Should work on my lilacs, too, if they come down with rust next month.

Point 2: Was Sinclair taking a risk using Longinshiex? I doubt he took it long enough, if indeed he actually took much of it.

Point 4: Ask Kurzweil why he is marketing a risky product. It's a business. Why is RJ Reynolds still marketing cigarettes? Beats me.

[bluemoon]

??? Say wha? IF you get a higher peak faster in blood serum levels, and a minimum level in the blood is needed to, say, kill cancer cells ... or any other possible effect..., then the difference is significant, Q.E.D.

No Q.E.D. here. The questions are how significant and to what extent one level has been shown to kill cancer cells, etc. This is still far from obvious.

Quercetin? It has been combined in formulations because it inhibits sulfonation, resulting in higher serum levels as does micronized. Is this significant? Could be.

Exactly. That has been Weindrich's speculation, but it didn't seem he was positive.

True, Longoevinex no longer contains emodin, but I was not refering t any particular brand. I cannot tell you for sure what a "safe" dose of emodin is, but it is a bowel irritant, and some doctors and researchers are concerned about long term effects.

Point 1, why does RevvGenetics still sell 50%? There must be a demand for it. They are a business. I do know that 50% makes a wonderful fungicide:

But RevGenetics (and some other brands) aren't just selling 50%, but with emodin, which you, some doctors and some reserchers have concerns about.

Point 2: Was Sinclair taking a risk using Longinshiex? I doubt he took it long enough, if indeed he actually took much of it.

He wrote that he was taking 320 mg of Longy a day, and it must have been for at least a couple of years.


Point 4: Ask Kurzweil why he is marketing a risky product. It's a business. Why is RJ Reynolds still marketing cigarettes? Beats me.

I'm not saying Kurzweil is marketing a risky product, nor am I saying RevGenetics is by including emodin. I was asking why. Also wondering why a guy so pro supplement like Kurzweil is only taking 100mg a day. Because he is high profile, that is an interesting question to me.

[2tender]

He may have a litany of other supplements in his regimen, and that amount is what is compatible with his system. I think dosage of Resveratrol, like other supplements, is dependant upon what a persons system can handle without experiencing sensitivities. Similar to Vitamin C intake, in that too much can induce bowel problems. When taking supplements we learn what is compatible and what is not, its a process of trial and error. I have had no problems with the RevGen product Im taking and Im sensitive to emodin, the content must be low.

[bluemoon]

He may have a litany of other supplements in his regimen, and that amount is what is compatible with his system. I think dosage of Resveratrol, like other supplements, is dependant upon what a persons system can handle without experiencing sensitivities.

I thought of that , and could be the reason, yet his co-author, Dr. Grossman is also taking 100mg a day. So the mystery continues...

[Anthony_Loera]

50% resveratrol in any but very small doses is to be avoided, IMO. Continued exposure to emodin could lead to ulceration even if symptoms are not experienced, and other substances in 50%, such as physcion, are problematical.
----
Longevinex says it doesnt contain emodin. And what would you say is a "very small dose"? I do tell people who ask, that if going for 500mg, to use 98%.

Still,

1) If 50% is really a poor product, why would RevGenetics continue selling that along with 98%?
2) Was Sinclair taking a risk when using Longevinex prior to using his own?
3) Again with Kurzweil, isn't it odd that he would market and I assume take 50% if a risky product?

Hi Holmes,

We have always tested the 50% to have only tiny amounts of emodin. The fact is that some folks like being regular, which is what many people on the 50% have mentioned.

See 50% COA here:
http://www.revgeneti...2509-7564_F.pdf

As for the other two... it appears we will never find out why. Why don't you email them and find out?

Ray and Terrys resveratrol is found in the price watch:
resveratrol price watch

Interesting... it seems like they used to sell 25% resveratrol as I still have that on the price watch from the original product specs...

Now they have switched to 50% resveratrol, maybe that is why they only advocate a small dose... too much emodin. Now I have to update this price watch to reflect 50% instead of 25%...


Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 25 May 2009 - 01:38 PM.

[fatboy]

I do know that 50% makes a wonderful fungicide: I dissolved some in 25% alcohol and sprayed it on my rhododendrons, and it killed the virus that ailed them. Should work on my lilacs, too, if they come down with rust next month.

Brilliant! Very disappointed in myself for overlooking this obvious use. I've got some hurting roses and peonies which haven't responded to conventional gardening products. They're gonna be getting a dose of resveratrol today.

[bluemoon]

We have always tested the 50% to have only tiny amounts of emodin.

Your site says under 2%. Is that tiny?

[Anthony_Loera]

We have always tested the 50% to have only tiny amounts of emodin.

Your site says under 2%. Is that tiny?

Yes, considering most folks 50% resveratrol has 5% - 12% or more... 2% is very good for 50% Resveratrol.
Of course 2% emodin is not acceptable for 98% - 99% high purity trans-resveratrol products, but very acceptable for 50% resveratrol products.

That is why I caution folks that see the ResV advertising, as they do not have a COA available, trans-resveratrol purity is unconfirmed, no one knows the amount of emodin in it, and you are forced into a recurring month to month charges after 14 days... which then is financially difficult for some folks to handle. (ResV is on the price watch)



Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 25 May 2009 - 06:50 PM.

[Mind]

Interesting discussion. I see different products are being debated. Drifting away from "how long have you been taking resveratrol?" As most of you know, retail product discussions tend to devolve into flame wars. Please keep this in mind. If this discussion continues to be a "retail" back and forth, then it will be moved into the Vendor Area.

[2tender]

It has turned into an interesting thread. I wanted to ascertain how many people have used Resveratrol for lengths of time and their experiences, as I was thinking that this may not be a very popular supplement given my experiences with other products. It seems that it is probably being used more widely than indicated by the sparse responses to this topic, simply for the reason that my preferred supplier is currently out of product. If there are others who are currently using Resveratrol or have used it with good effect for lengths of time, please post up. I have been taking it for a few months now and have noticed a difference. This is a huge board and I am surprised that there are not many posters regarding this topic.

[bluemoon]

To me, 2% seems small, but would maxwatt or fatboy use resveratrol with 2% emodin? What is the cutoff?

[maxwatt]

To me, 2% seems small, but would maxwatt or fatboy use resveratrol with 2% emodin? What is the cutoff?

OVer 30 mg of emodin will cause intestinal distress in most people. Do the math.

[2tender]

I could be wrong but I dont think that there are any lower than that.

[fatboy]

To me, 2% seems small, but would maxwatt or fatboy use resveratrol with 2% emodin? What is the cutoff?

Sure, as a hypogondal pre-diabetic 46 yo male I'm always game to try something which might lower my blood sugars.

Hypoglycaemic and hypolipidaemic effects of emodin and its effect on L-type calcium channels in dyslipidaemic-diabetic rats.

I already consume 50-60g fiber/day (20-30g supplemental) and defecate 3-4 times/day on average. So I am not only not afeared, I may actually try it.

Edited by fatboy, 26 May 2009 - 02:54 AM.

[steelheader]

It has turned into an interesting thread. I wanted to ascertain how many people have used Resveratrol for lengths of time and their experiences, as I was thinking that this may not be a very popular supplement given my experiences with other products. It seems that it is probably being used more widely than indicated by the sparse responses to this topic, simply for the reason that my preferred supplier is currently out of product. If there are others who are currently using Resveratrol or have used it with good effect for lengths of time, please post up. I have been taking it for a few months now and have noticed a difference. This is a huge board and I am surprised that there are not many posters regarding this topic.

I've been on Resveratrol for a couple of years. Two grams of 99% in whey protein drink for most of the last year. Just switched to 1 1/2 gram with 500 mg quercetin. Like many older users (I'm 73) I had a positive effect from the beginning. Standard stuff.... more energy, endurance, better balance, feel younger, etc. Whatever effect I get from it has become the new normal. So I don't give resveratrol much thought anymore.

[2tender]

Steelheader, thanks for posting that! I take it the Resveratrol you use is not micronized, is that correct? Have you noticed much of a difference after adding the quercetin? Im glad to hear that it has added to your overall sense of well being. Is that all that is in your regimen? Any regular exercise?