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

Photo
- - - - -

Optimum Quantity Intake of Resveratrol


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 poptart

  • Guest
  • 4 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Big Apple

Posted 28 June 2009 - 05:05 PM


I'm somewhat confused... I'm reading conflicting reports regarding the amount of resveratrol one should take..

Some say that 500mg for every lb is a good guideline... that 100mg is good enough for lab mice but humans need more....

others only recommend 100mg stating that beyond that may cause heart attack and does not really mimic the restriction of calories etc...
http://www.waltdisney.com
can someone shed some light?

Thanks!

Edited by maxwatt, 29 June 2009 - 05:45 AM.


#2 hamishm00

  • Guest
  • 1,053 posts
  • 94
  • Location:United Arab Emirates

Posted 28 June 2009 - 06:38 PM

500mg for every pound of what? Pounds Sterling?

5mg/kg I think people talk about a lot.

Read the stickied thread: http://www.imminst.o...day-t14124.html

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

#3 poptart

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Big Apple

Posted 28 June 2009 - 07:19 PM

I meant to write 500mg for every 50 lbs


I'm somewhat confused... I'm reading conflicting reports regarding the amount of resveratrol one should take..

Some say that 500mg for every lb is a good guideline... that 100mg is good enough for lab mice but humans need more....

others only recommend 100mg stating that beyond that may cause heart attack and does not really mimic the restriction of calories etc...
http://tinyurl.com/nukwuf

can someone shed some light?

Thanks!


Edited by poptart, 28 June 2009 - 07:32 PM.


#4 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 28 June 2009 - 08:15 PM

This study that you reference regarding the 'heart attack' has been mentioned before and basically used to market low dose resveratrol:
http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=285564

Folks think it is not an accurate press release, and the link you provided goes to a companies website, and not the study it references. Please link to the study next time instead of a commercial site through an obfuscated url as it looks like spam. Beware of companies making such statements in a press releases, specially folks who do not have a background in science.

Folks that do have a background in medicine like Dr. Maroon, take 500mg or more.
Read his book about resveratrol "The Longevity Factor".

As a side note, he does not sell resveratrol, and has no horse in the race.

More importantly,
please read the thread that has been going on for 2 years, of people taking 500mg or more of resveratrol daily:
http://www.imminst.o...day-t14124.html

2 years is quite a long time, if 500mg provided a heart attack, the folks posting on that thread would have been long gone by now.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 28 June 2009 - 08:23 PM.


#5 tunt01

  • Guest
  • 2,308 posts
  • 414
  • Location:NW

Posted 28 June 2009 - 09:50 PM

it'd be nice to find a 99% pure revseratrol with like 100 or 200mg per capsule

#6 Tim Jones

  • Guest
  • 11 posts
  • 1

Posted 28 June 2009 - 10:35 PM

500mg for every pound of what? Pounds Sterling?

5mg/kg I think people talk about a lot.

Read the stickied thread: http://www.imminst.o...day-t14124.html


For a compound like Resveratrol, tolerance testing typically would be the best option. The reason for this is due to the fact that because of the various complex mechanisms this compound implements, it is very unlikely that a "optimum" dosage will ever exist for every user.

A good thing about the Resveratrol compound is that most users report very visible "symptoms" when taking the drug such as increased energy and increased sleep quality. This allows the use of pyramid testing to determine optimum individual dosing. Ideally when doing this type of testing, it is best to buy the powder form and use a gram scale so that you can monitor optimum dosages. You can disolve the calculated dosage in either wine or juice when taking.

The procedure is rather simple to perform... You start at a very low dosage of Resveratrol and put down any physical symptoms you notice on a notepad denoting the date and time you noticed the symptom. Also denote your level of confidence for each symptoms in a 1 to 10 scale which will help you manage false positive symptoms. Next, slowly increase the dosage daily cataloging any additional symptom changes you notice. Finally, once you have reached what you personally feel is the maximum "safe" dosage, back down your dosages slowly until you start to notice the various "symptoms" diminish . Once you finally reach your returning low point, compile the aggregate data and calculate what you feel your individual optimum/safest dosage is... If you are ever in doubt, then perform a second testing cycle, compare the corresponding data to increase confidence in your conclusions.

Edited by Tim Jones, 28 June 2009 - 10:39 PM.


#7 poptart

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 4 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Big Apple

Posted 28 June 2009 - 10:57 PM

Thanks for the info Anthony. It makes sense.

This study that you reference regarding the 'heart attack' has been mentioned before and basically used to market low dose resveratrol:
http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=285564

Folks think it is not an accurate press release, and the link you provided goes to a companies website, and not the study it references. Please link to the study next time instead of a commercial site through an obfuscated url as it looks like spam. Beware of companies making such statements in a press releases, specially folks who do not have a background in science.

Folks that do have a background in medicine like Dr. Maroon, take 500mg or more.
Read his book about resveratrol "The Longevity Factor".

As a side note, he does not sell resveratrol, and has no horse in the race.

More importantly,
please read the thread that has been going on for 2 years, of people taking 500mg or more of resveratrol daily:
http://www.imminst.o...day-t14124.html

2 years is quite a long time, if 500mg provided a heart attack, the folks posting on that thread would have been long gone by now.

Cheers
A



#8 niner

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

Posted 29 June 2009 - 04:37 AM

I meant to write 500mg for every 50 lbs

(500mg/50lb) * (2.2lb/1kg) = 22mg/kg. That's a pretty big, but not unheard of dose. A gram and a half per day for a 70kg adult. If you want to read the 500 club thread, you probably should start towards the end. It covers so much time that it's a chronicle of discovery more than a concise piece of advice. These days, the trend has backed off from the really large doses. I think a lot of people are in the ballpark of a half gram, maybe a little more. We now have some reasonable evidence that says it's best to take it in the morning, as a single dose.

#9 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 761 posts
  • 94
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 29 June 2009 - 12:13 PM

I think a lot of people are in the ballpark of a half gram, maybe a little more. We now have some reasonable evidence that says it's best to take it in the morning, as a single dose.


It was never really 500mg. It was based on Dr. Sinclair taking 5mg/kg but the poster thought 500mg sounded better. Look at the the first post.

Sinclair was only taking 320mg a day according to information conveyed to the Immt Inst in an email to the treasurer.

And what "reasonable evidence" do you have to say take a single dose in the morning? Sinclair was splitting the 320mg, into 160/160 when Longevinex was in 40mg capsules, into 160mg in breakfast and 160 mg at dinner.

Edited by Holmes, 29 June 2009 - 12:15 PM.


#10 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 29 June 2009 - 02:36 PM

I think a lot of people are in the ballpark of a half gram, maybe a little more. We now have some reasonable evidence that says it's best to take it in the morning, as a single dose.


It was never really 500mg. It was based on Dr. Sinclair taking 5mg/kg but the poster thought 500mg sounded better. Look at the the first post.

Sinclair was only taking 320mg a day according to information conveyed to the Immt Inst in an email to the treasurer.

And what "reasonable evidence" do you have to say take a single dose in the morning? Sinclair was splitting the 320mg, into 160/160 when Longevinex was in 40mg capsules, into 160mg in breakfast and 160 mg at dinner.


The greater bioavailable of resveratrol with morning dosing was discussed here after a studying showing higher blood serum levels with morning administration.

We still do not know what Sinclair is currently taking. Scientific knowledge about resveratrol has increased many-fold in the three years since the email to imminst's treasurer, as has the availability of reasonably priced, pure resveratrol.

#11 niner

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

Posted 29 June 2009 - 09:36 PM

I think a lot of people are in the ballpark of a half gram, maybe a little more. We now have some reasonable evidence that says it's best to take it in the morning, as a single dose.

And what "reasonable evidence" do you have to say take a single dose in the morning? Sinclair was splitting the 320mg, into 160/160 when Longevinex was in 40mg capsules, into 160mg in breakfast and 160 mg at dinner.

See this. The paper is here.

#12 fatboy

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 0

Posted 29 June 2009 - 10:21 PM

The greater bioavailable of resveratrol with morning dosing was discussed here after a studying showing higher blood serum levels with morning administration.


I'm taking my dose at night to try and disrupt the gluconeogenesis associated with Dawn Phenomena. But I'm a pre-diabetic, hypogonadal 46yo male trying to lower his morning fasting glucose.

Edited by fatboy, 29 June 2009 - 10:25 PM.


#13 zomfg

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 1

Posted 29 June 2009 - 10:58 PM

I think a lot of people are in the ballpark of a half gram, maybe a little more. We now have some reasonable evidence that says it's best to take it in the morning, as a single dose.


It was never really 500mg. It was based on Dr. Sinclair taking 5mg/kg but the poster thought 500mg sounded better. Look at the the first post.

Sinclair was only taking 320mg a day according to information conveyed to the Immt Inst in an email to the treasurer.

And what "reasonable evidence" do you have to say take a single dose in the morning? Sinclair was splitting the 320mg, into 160/160 when Longevinex was in 40mg capsules, into 160mg in breakfast and 160 mg at dinner.


Dear Dr. Holmes,
Attached File  Stopposting.jpg   27.61KB   8 downloads

You contribute nothing of substance to discussion, and naysay after having been spoon-fed the research. You are either an idiot or a shameless Longy shill.

#14 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 761 posts
  • 94
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 02 July 2009 - 12:04 AM

I think a lot of people are in the ballpark of a half gram, maybe a little more. We now have some reasonable evidence that says it's best to take it in the morning, as a single dose.


It was never really 500mg. It was based on Dr. Sinclair taking 5mg/kg but the poster thought 500mg sounded better. Look at the the first post.

Sinclair was only taking 320mg a day according to information conveyed to the Immt Inst in an email to the treasurer.

And what "reasonable evidence" do you have to say take a single dose in the morning? Sinclair was splitting the 320mg, into 160/160 when Longevinex was in 40mg capsules, into 160mg in breakfast and 160 mg at dinner.


The greater bioavailable of resveratrol with morning dosing was discussed here after a studying showing higher blood serum levels with morning administration.

We still do not know what Sinclair is currently taking. Scientific knowledge about resveratrol has increased many-fold in the three years since the email to imminst's treasurer, as has the availability of reasonably priced, pure resveratrol.


niner: I'd think that a study of only 10 people is a bit small. It also isn't clear to me how different those numbers are, nor even given a notable difference, what that translates to in terms of health. That last one won't be known for a long time,
but why do you think the differences are significant? Not saying that they aren't.

maxwatt: Sinclair was taking Longevinex for about 3 years according to that email, and Sardi claims later it was a total of 4 years. So that puts it at likely late 2007 when Sinclair stopped taking that (when I started). Knowledge of resveratrol has increased over the past 18 months, but not "many-fold" Actually, it looks like the real gains in knowledge came between 2002 and 2008. No way to quantify it though. It seems highly likely he is taking SRT501 as he showed it to an Australia 60 Minutes reporter . Assuming he is, it would be interesting to know how much, but since a synthetic, it probably wouldnt indicate a resveratrol equivalent.

#15 niner

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

Posted 02 July 2009 - 12:29 AM

I think a lot of people are in the ballpark of a half gram, maybe a little more. We now have some reasonable evidence that says it's best to take it in the morning, as a single dose.

And what "reasonable evidence" do you have to say take a single dose in the morning? Sinclair was splitting the 320mg, into 160/160 when Longevinex was in 40mg capsules, into 160mg in breakfast and 160 mg at dinner.

niner: I'd think that a study of only 10 people is a bit small. It also isn't clear to me how different those numbers are, nor even given a notable difference, what that translates to in terms of health. That last one won't be known for a long time,
but why do you think the differences are significant? Not saying that they aren't.

Holmes, in the post that I directed you to, I said this:

The dose range is a factor of 150/25 = 6, but the Cmax range is a factor of 16.4, and the AUC range is 25.5!

The AUC range is most pertinent, and tells you that taking 150mg all at once is a bit more than four times as effective as splitting it into six 25mg aliquots. This is not the kind of study where ten people is small. For a pharmacokinetic study, that is considered large.

I'm not sure if you mean it to come over this way, but it does sound like you are naysaying after having been provided the research.

#16 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 761 posts
  • 94
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 02 July 2009 - 12:43 AM

Holmes, in the post that I directed you to, I said this:

The dose range is a factor of 150/25 = 6, but the Cmax range is a factor of 16.4, and the AUC range is 25.5!

The AUC range is most pertinent, and tells you that taking 150mg all at once is a bit more than four times as effective as splitting it into six 25mg aliquots. This is not the kind of study where ten people is small. For a pharmacokinetic study, that is considered large.

I'm not sure if you mean it to come over this way, but it does sound like you are naysaying after having been provided the research.


But what would the difference be if I split 150mg into just morning and night? I'd assume less dramatic. I dont think anyone would take resveratrol six times throughout the day. I agreed that based on this study all in the morning is more effective, just curious what that translates to. I also said 10 people seems small, but I didn't know.

#17 niner

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

Posted 02 July 2009 - 12:59 AM

Holmes, in the post that I directed you to, I said this:

The dose range is a factor of 150/25 = 6, but the Cmax range is a factor of 16.4, and the AUC range is 25.5!

The AUC range is most pertinent, and tells you that taking 150mg all at once is a bit more than four times as effective as splitting it into six 25mg aliquots. This is not the kind of study where ten people is small. For a pharmacokinetic study, that is considered large.

I'm not sure if you mean it to come over this way, but it does sound like you are naysaying after having been provided the research.

But what would the difference be if I split 150mg into just morning and night? I'd assume less dramatic. I dont think anyone would take resveratrol six times throughout the day. I agreed that based on this study all in the morning is more effective, just curious what that translates to. I also said 10 people seems small, but I didn't know.

From the same data, doubling the dose from 25 to 50mg increased exposure by a factor of 3.6; going from 50 to 100 increased exposure by a factor of 3.0. These are 80% and 50% more effective, respectively, than the factor of two that one might expect. This is the second study in which we've seen this effect, from two different labs.

#18 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 761 posts
  • 94
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 02 July 2009 - 01:09 AM

From the same data, doubling the dose from 25 to 50mg increased exposure by a factor of 3.6; going from 50 to 100 increased exposure by a factor of 3.0. These are 80% and 50% more effective, respectively, than the factor of two that one might expect. This is the second study in which we've seen this effect, from two different labs.


I didnt read the original study , just the part that was on the thread you linked. I must have missed it.
So is this the same as taking a higher dose?

#19 niner

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

Posted 02 July 2009 - 02:12 AM

From the same data, doubling the dose from 25 to 50mg increased exposure by a factor of 3.6; going from 50 to 100 increased exposure by a factor of 3.0. These are 80% and 50% more effective, respectively, than the factor of two that one might expect. This is the second study in which we've seen this effect, from two different labs.

I didnt read the original study , just the part that was on the thread you linked. I must have missed it.
So is this the same as taking a higher dose?

essentially, yes.

#20 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 02 July 2009 - 11:25 AM

Sinclair was taking Longevinex for about 3 years according to that email, and Sardi claims later it was a total of 4 years. [...] It seems highly likely he is taking SRT501 as he showed it to an Australia 60 Minutes reporter . Assuming he is, it would be interesting to know how much, but since a synthetic, it probably wouldnt indicate a resveratrol equivalent.

SRT501 is a formulation, micronized resveratrol plus HPMC and DOSS, surfactants commonly used to increase drug bioavailability (discussed here last year, information came from the supplementary data section in one of his papers.) The "250" on the bottle would likely indicate the resveratrol dosage of the capsules, if the bottle were not a mock-up for the interview. Then one could guess he is taking a multiple of 250 grams.

Don't believe anything S---i says when his lips are moving; he is a salesman. One could infer with greater likelihood that Sinclair stopped taking Longventx in late 2006 when pure synthetic and 98% extracts became available.

When one makes one inference from partial evidence, it may be likely to be true. When one makes several in a row, the probabilistic uncertainty of one's conclusions increases exponentially.

Edited by Michael, 27 July 2009 - 12:40 PM.
Trim quotes


#21 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 761 posts
  • 94
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 02 July 2009 - 11:57 AM

SRT501 is a formulation, micronized resveratrol plus HPMC and DOSS, surfactants commonly used to increase drug bioavailability (discussed here last year, information came from the supplementary data section in one of his papers.) The "250" on the bottle would likely indicate the resveratrol dosage of the capsules, if the bottle were not a mock-up for the interview. Then one could guess he is taking a multiple of 250 grams.

Don't believe anything S---i says when his lips are moving; he is a salesman. One could infer with greater likelihood that Sinclair stopped taking Longventx in late 2006 when pure synthetic and 98% extracts became available.

When one makes one inference from partial evidence, it may be likely to be true. When one makes several in a row, the probabilistic uncertainty of one's conclusions increases exponentially.



That's great maxwatt. Can you explain why you played games about the 2007 email to the Immortality Institute?
You repeatedly said that you didn't think Sinclair took Longevinex "for very long" yet you were one of the first
to comment on the article that said he was taking it for 3 years.

And one cannot infer that Sinclair started taking 98% extracts in late 2006. The email from early 2007 says 3 years and
the Longevinex website says 4 years. If Sardi was lying about the length, I bet he'd get a lawsuit threat. But check it out, it is still up. So it looks like until late 2007 or maybe early 2008. So at some point in 2007 or maybe 2008, Sinclair switched.
Almost certainly, it was to SRT501.

Edited by Holmes, 02 July 2009 - 12:35 PM.


#22 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 02 July 2009 - 04:28 PM

SRT501 is a formulation, micronized resveratrol plus HPMC and DOSS, surfactants commonly used to increase drug bioavailability (discussed here last year, information came from the supplementary data section in one of his papers.) The "250" on the bottle would likely indicate the resveratrol dosage of the capsules, if the bottle were not a mock-up for the interview. Then one could guess he is taking a multiple of 250 grams.

Don't believe anything S---i says when his lips are moving; he is a salesman. One could infer with greater likelihood that Sinclair stopped taking Longventx in late 2006 when pure synthetic and 98% extracts became available.

When one makes one inference from partial evidence, it may be likely to be true. When one makes several in a row, the probabilistic uncertainty of one's conclusions increases exponentially.



That's great maxwatt, can you explain why you played games about the 2007 email to the Immortality Institute?
You repeatedly said that you didn't think Sinclair took Longevinex "for very long" yet you were one of the first
to comment on the article that said he was taking it for 3 years.

And one cannot infer that Sinclair started taking 98% extracts in late 2006. The email from early 2007 says 3 years and
the Longevinex website says 4 years. If Sardi was lying about the length, I bet he'd get a lawsuit threat. But check it out, it is still up. So it looks like until late 2007 or maybe early 2008. So at some point in 2007 or maybe 2008, Sinclair switched.
Almost for sure it was to SRT501


It's not a game; I learn when new information is presented.

Sinclair has stated that SRT501 is resveratrol. There have been at least two formulations using different surfactants: Tween 80, and HPMC and DOSS.

#23 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 02 July 2009 - 11:28 PM

Holmes, Anthony-

I've deleted your last exchange, it contributes nothing useful here

#24 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 07 July 2009 - 02:39 PM

Does dose determine cancer killing or longevity?

According to one manufacturer's email this study somehow compares low dose against high dose:

Induction of a reversible, non-cytotoxic S-phase delay by resveratrol: implications for a mechanism of lifespan prolongation and cancer protection

<h1 class="abstract-title" id="Abstract">ABSTRACT</h1> Background and purpose: Resveratrol (RES) has been shown to prolong lifespan and prevent cancer formation. At present, the precise cellular mechanisms of RES actions are still not clearly understood, and this is the focus of this study.

Experimental approach: Using human hepatocellular carcinoma-derived HepG2 cells as a model, we studied RES-induced changes in cell growth, cell cycle progression and apoptosis.

Key results: RES at lower concentrations induced a strong but reversible S-phase delay and mild DNA synthesis inhibition, yet without causing apoptotic or necrotic cell death. At high concentrations, RES induced apoptosis, which is mainly mediated by the mitochondrial pathway. Overall, RES was a relatively weak apoptotic agent. Mechanistically, MEK inhibition was identified as an important early signalling event for RES-induced apoptosis. In comparison, activation of CDK2 and checkpoint kinase 2, and inhibition of phosphatidylinositol 3'-kinase/Akt signalling pathway contributed to the induction by RES of a reversible, non-cytotoxic S-phase delay.

Conclusion and implications: It is hypothesized that the induction of a non-cytotoxic S-phase delay may represent a useful mechanistic strategy for lifespan prolongation and cancer prevention. When cell cycles are selectively slowed down in the S phase, it would cumulatively increase the total lifespan of an organism if the total numbers of cell divisions of a given organism are assumed to remain basically constant. Likewise, when cells proceed through the cell cycles at a reduced pace during DNA replication, it may allow cells more time to repair the damaged DNA, and thereby reduce the chances for mutagenesis and tumour initiation.




Pretty nice abstract, however what dose was used in the study and can humans take the same dosage?

According the study, the lower concentrations of RES in the study were 6.25um, 12.5um and 25um. See Page 3 under "Results" it states "we further studied the effect of relatively lower concentrations of RES (at 6.25, 12.5 and 25 uM)"

Now according to the Boocock study that dosed humans with resveratrol, are these amounts easily achievable by taking 100mg? How much would we estimate a dose of 6.25um per liter of blood would take, if we took resveratrol supplements?

100mg? 300mg? 500mg? 1000mg? 5000mg? or.. more?
Here is the Boocock study again: http://cebp.aacrjour...tract/16/6/1246

I am actually getting ready for trip and pretty much know the answer, but I think Maxwatt and others could help here. This may provide an interesting conversation.

Cheers
A

#25 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 07 July 2009 - 03:47 PM

The implications of the Boocock study were discussed HERE last year: according to Boocock's data, "the best concentration peak we can hope for from 5g is just 2.36 mM (Rsv weighs 228 g / mol, so 1 mM is 228 ng/mL)".

This is a fraction of the lowest concentration in the study Anthony cited. We would need more information to actually obtain the entire paper, such as the journal, authors and title.

#26 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 761 posts
  • 94
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 08 July 2009 - 03:53 AM

question about SRT501 that I didn't put on the September cancer thread announcement:
If SRT501 is easy to make, then what is in there? Is it res plus quercetin or something else?
I've read that it is about 5 times more potent than regular res alone. Is that about right?

I take it the dose used in the cancer trials isn't known.

I don't think its obvious that the 250mg label is correct, although it could be. Any ideas how
close that would be to regular resveratrol? 1250mg equivalent?

#27 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 08 July 2009 - 10:23 AM

question about SRT501 that I didn't put on the September cancer thread announcement:
If SRT501 is easy to make, then what is in there? Is it res plus quercetin or something else?
I've read that it is about 5 times more potent than regular res alone. Is that about right?

I take it the dose used in the cancer trials isn't known.

I don't think its obvious that the 250mg label is correct, although it could be. Any ideas how
close that would be to regular resveratrol? 1250mg equivalent?


You might find this interesting: http://www.faqs.org/...app/20090012080

For the diet induced obesity model, six week old C57BL/6 male mice (Charles River Labs) were fed a high fat diet (60% calories from fat; Research Diets) for approximately 6 weeks until their body weight reached approximately 40 g. Test compounds were administered daily via oral gavage at the indicated doses. The vehicle used was 2% HPMC and 0.2% DOSS. Individual mouse body weights were measured twice weekly. Every 2 weeks throughout the study, mice from each group were bled via the tail vein for determination of blood glucose.


You can make your own solution using HPMC, 2 grams HPMC in 98 grams water. DOSS is to prevent gelling. The exact percentage is not critical; Sinclair used a 3%/0,3% solution elsewhere. If the solution is not stored, DOSS is perhaps not necessary, but could be it gels quickly; I woukd use DOSS were I attempting this now. One makes the solution, and adds micronized resveratrol, then stir or sonicate for an hour.

Sinclair did state in an interview that SRT501 was micronzed resveratrol. Sirtris has formulate it at various times, for different patents and papers, with HPMC as above, with captisol, and with Tween80. The blood serum levels obtained with the various SRT501 formulations, which have used different surfactants are typically at least twice that obtained from oral resveratrol.

Other surfactants contributors to this form have used include lecithin and PEG (Miralax, sold OTC as a laxative.)

#28 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 761 posts
  • 94
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 08 July 2009 - 11:10 AM

You can make your own solution using HPMC, 2 grams HPMC in 98 grams water. DOSS is to prevent gelling. The exact percentage is not critical; Sinclair used a 3%/0,3% solution elsewhere. If the solution is not stored, DOSS is perhaps not necessary, but could be it gels quickly; I woukd use DOSS were I attempting this now. One makes the solution, and adds micronized resveratrol, then stir or sonicate for an hour.


If people can make it fairly easily, wouldn't cancer patients try to get a group to make some but not sell it? And if SRT501 is effective against some cancers, would it be available sooner?

#29 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,168 posts
  • 745
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 10 July 2009 - 05:48 PM

Hi Holmes,

I am not sure about specific claims for a product, but in regards to manufacturing there is typically a high minimum for any liquid capsule product. A pretty large group of folks would have to pool resources to make it happen.

As for SRT501... I believe it has been approved for Melas, but not produced by GSK at this time.

Cheers
A

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

#30 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 761 posts
  • 94
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 11 July 2009 - 12:25 AM

Hi Holmes,

I am not sure about specific claims for a product, but in regards to manufacturing there is typically a high minimum for any liquid capsule product. A pretty large group of folks would have to pool resources to make it happen.

As for SRT501... I believe it has been approved for Melas, but not produced by GSK at this time.

Cheers
A


I guess it depends on what people expect out of SRT501. If the results are very positive, wouldn't a lot of cancer patients including those who know that SRT501 is easy to make, want to somehow make it legally?

I mentioned this on another thread, but do you know of any cancer studies underway where only resveratrol is used at maybe 2 to 3g? I'd think that two and a half years after 98% became available that some doctors would have set up studies.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users