• 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

#31 Mark J.

  • Guest
  • 7 posts
  • 0

Posted 17 July 2009 - 08:50 PM

Here's the skinny on dosage.

There have been many studies on quantities of resveratrol in humans. You can't tell based upon mice studies.

Most important, studies with massive quantities 5,000+ mg have shown no toxicity, though did show some blood thinning on certain patients. The other issue is purity. Make sure you buy 98% pure resveratrol. If it's 50% pure not only is their 1/2 the dosage, but it's impure and generally has Emodin which causes stomach problems.

Makers of Resveratrol are going to tell you that you don't need a lot, since it costs a lot.
Mark Juliano

Edited by maxwatt, 17 July 2009 - 09:17 PM.


#32 Anthony_Loera

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

Posted 17 July 2009 - 11:47 PM

Holmes,

The NIH will be doing 2 gram a day studies beginning this year.

A

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

#33 niner

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

Posted 18 July 2009 - 12:50 AM

Makers of Resveratrol are going to tell you that you don't need a lot, since it costs a lot.

Wouldn't they tell you that you need a lot, so they'd make more money? Unless they only produce low-dosage pills. Then they would tell you that you don't need much... Then there's always the possibility that at least some resveratrol vendors will tell you what they think is best for you, regardless of the effect on their bottom line.

#34 tunt01

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

Posted 18 July 2009 - 03:43 AM

Here's the skinny on dosage.

There have been many studies on quantities of resveratrol in humans. You can't tell based upon mice studies.

Most important, studies with massive quantities 5,000+ mg have shown no toxicity, though did show some blood thinning on certain patients. The other issue is purity. Make sure you buy 98% pure resveratrol. If it's 50% pure not only is their 1/2 the dosage, but it's impure and generally has Emodin which causes stomach problems.

Makers of Resveratrol are going to tell you that you don't need a lot, since it costs a lot.
Mark Juliano


is 50% res that bad? I bought some with 3% emodin content and it seems ok to me.

#35 maxwatt

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

Posted 18 July 2009 - 04:16 AM

is 50% res that bad? I bought some with 3% emodin content and it seems ok to me.


It depends. Physcion and various anthocyanins, whose effects have not been studied, can be found in varying amounts. More than 30 mg of emodin will make most people experience loose stools, and twice that watery stool. But some people have a higher tolerance than others, so it depends on the dose. 500 mg of 50% res, 3% emodin --> 15 g emodin. some people would find it uncomfortable, most could tolerate it.

Long term effect of emodin may lead to ulceration from irritation, maybe not. Physcion is also a laxative.

Some people have experience a stimulant effect from 50%, perhaps due to some of the other components.

#36 Marc P

  • Guest
  • 13 posts
  • 0

Posted 18 July 2009 - 05:55 PM

What is the number I am looking for.If I am taking 300mg of resveratrol but the total resveratrol is 100,does that mean I have to take 900mg to get 300 total res........When peaple say they are taking 500 of res ,What number are they talking about???

#37 maxwatt

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

Posted 18 July 2009 - 07:14 PM

What is the number I am looking for.If I am taking 300mg of resveratrol but the total resveratrol is 100,does that mean I have to take 900mg to get 300 total res........When peaple say they are taking 500 of res ,What number are they talking about???

50% is half. Does that help?

#38 Marc P

  • Guest
  • 13 posts
  • 0

Posted 18 July 2009 - 08:22 PM

I have a bottle from Whole health.It does not say if it 20-30-40-50-or 100% pure.All it says is it has 325 mg trans-resveratrol,So what am I getting? To me its 325 mg Resveratrol.Someone clarify for me please.

#39 niner

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

Posted 19 July 2009 - 04:26 AM

I have a bottle from Whole health.It does not say if it 20-30-40-50-or 100% pure.All it says is it has 325 mg trans-resveratrol,So what am I getting? To me its 325 mg Resveratrol.Someone clarify for me please.

Resveratrol comes in different purities. Usually it's 50%, sometimes it's less, and sometimes it's 98 or 99% purity. The number that matters is the amount of actual resveratrol molecules you are consuming, not the "filler" or other extraneous components. A responsible vendor will tell you the amount of resveratrol you are getting, not the amount of "resveratrol + other stuff", which will sound like "more" since it's obviously a larger number. Resveratrol can also be found in two forms, "cis-" and "trans-" resveratrol. The trans form is the biologically active one, and it's also the form that resveratrol comes in from the knotweed plant that makes it. People used to think that the trans form was unstable, and that it would easily change into cis, but in fact the trans form is the most stable form, and cis will spontaneously (although slowly) revert back to cis. Exposure to ultraviolet light can cause the trans form to turn into the cis form. This is pretty easy to avoid, so in my opinion, worrying about whether you are getting cis- or trans- is not worthwhile. It's nearly all trans unless the people who produced it were idiots, in which case you have bigger things to worry about, like how much heavy metals are in there.

The Whole Health resveratrol does in fact contain 325mg of resveratrol, as you thought. I looked at their supplement facts panel, and they don't list the purity of the source, but it is undoubtedly 50%. As far as I know, only specialty resveratrol dealers sell the high purity products. Using the $26.60 price given on the Whole Health website, this stuff costs $2.73 per gram of resveratrol. That's not a particularly good value, compared to the offerings of the resveratrol specialty market.

#40 Marc P

  • Guest
  • 13 posts
  • 0

Posted 19 July 2009 - 11:48 AM

I have been thinking about trying the micronized powder from revgenetics.Anyone have any thoughts on this product?It looks like it is in the 99% range.I was thinking that I could mix it with my low carb Whey prorien shake in the morning after my workout.

#41 maxwatt

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

Posted 19 July 2009 - 12:24 PM

I have been thinking about trying the micronized powder from revgenetics.Anyone have any thoughts on this product?It looks like it is in the 99% range.I was thinking that I could mix it with my low carb Whey prorien shake in the morning after my workout.


Any 98 or 99% powder that has a valid COA and independent testing should give you good results. Micronization helps dispersal, but according to one supplement maker does not increase AUC (area under the curve -- sum of resveratrol in blood over time) though it does increase the peak concentration in the blood.

More important is solubility. Members have found resveratrol will disperse in whey protein drinks, by binding to the protein. Micronization should aid this; large particles may be too big to bind and settle to the bottom of hte drink.

#42 Dr. Alex

  • Guest
  • 1 posts
  • 0

Posted 23 July 2009 - 12:12 AM

The most recent data might raise concern about high-dose resveratrol. It's out of the University of Kansas Medical School and will be in the next issue of British J Pharmacol. Basically, it was an in vitro study looking at cell cycle changes and apoptosis (programmed cell death). It showed low-dose resveratrol slowed the S-phase of the cell cycle (a good thing in that it would increase the amount of time it would take a cell to reach the Hayflick Limit, about 50 replications, and it would allow for more DNA repair to occur during a slower S-phase).

It also showed that high-dose resveratrol sped up the S-phase, which would be a good thing for cancer (a faster S-phase would lead to apoptosis, which would end the life of cancer cells), but a bad thing for normal cells as it would speed up aging (faster S-phases would lessen the time it takes to reach the Hayflick Limit) and would also decrease the time that DNA repair mechanisms would have to do their thing. When you take the results of this study and add them to the high-dose rat studies that shortened their lives, I think we need to be cautious with high-dose resveratrol until more data comes in.

Dr. Alex

#43 niner

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

Posted 23 July 2009 - 12:19 AM

The most recent data might raise concern about high-dose resveratrol. It's out of the University of Kansas Medical School and will be in the next issue of British J Pharmacol. Basically, it was an in vitro study looking at cell cycle changes and apoptosis (programmed cell death). It showed low-dose resveratrol slowed the S-phase of the cell cycle (a good thing in that it would increase the amount of time it would take a cell to reach the Hayflick Limit, about 50 replications, and it would allow for more DNA repair to occur during a slower S-phase).

That must be Anthony's post #24 in this thread. Does anyone have a citation on that, or the author's names?

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

#44 maxwatt

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

Posted 23 July 2009 - 01:50 AM

That must be Anthony's post #24 in this thread. Does anyone have a citation on that, or the author's names?



Boocock's paper found peak blood serum levels in humans of 117 ng/ml at a dose of 1 g (14 mg/kg for a 70 kg human) effectively the same as a mouse gets from a dose 400mg/kg. ( Phase I dose escalation pharmacokinetic study in healthy volunteers of resveratrol, a potential cancer chemopreventive agent. Boocock DJ, Faust GE, Patel KR, Schinas AM, Brown VA, Ducharme MP, Booth TD, Crowell JA, Perloff M, Gescher AJ, Steward WP, Brenner DE., Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 Jun;16(6):1246-52.

(Of Mice, men and resveratrol) thread.

According the study Anthony turned up, 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)"

from post 24 in this thread. http://www.imminst.o...&...st&p=333939

All we need do is convert uM (micro Mols ) to ng/ms (nanograms per milliliter.) hint: the molecular weight of resveratrol is 228.25.

another hint: 117 ng/ml =117ug/l.
another hint: A mol of resveratrol weight 228.28 grams.

117*10-6g/228.28 = .5 uM. Did I do that right, Doctor? I used to whip these off in my head, but I am rusty, yet I think that the concentration Boocock found in humans from a 1 gram dose of resveratrol is 0.5uM. The lowest dose showing toxic effects from the U of Kansas study is over 10 times that, and is a concentration that cannot be attained in human blood serum from oral dosing.

If all our assumptions are correct, then Boocock's peak blood level is less than one tenth the beneficial lowest concentration in this U of Kansas study.

I have no doubt that resveratrol, like so many other things including water, has an inverted U-shaped benefit curve, with too much proving toxic. The question is where is the knee of the curve, and how can we stay in the rising slope of benefits? If too much is harmful, and too little is not beneficial, what is an optimal dosage range?

Dr. Alex: If you are going to cite papers in support of conclusions, it would be helpful to include enough data to help us determine if they are valid, and to contribute to our knowledge, rather than to obscure it.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users