David Sinclair wrote:
NEW STUDY: Colon cancer study, Oct 27:
"3.7% control mice vs 68.7% resveratrol-treated mice free of metastasis. Oral resv at 30 mg/kg. Amzng"
1:10 PM Oct 30th from web
I couldn't find any other information....
Posted 01 November 2009 - 01:26 AM
Posted 01 November 2009 - 02:23 AM
David Sinclair wrote:
NEW STUDY: Colon cancer study, Oct 27:
"3.7% control mice vs 68.7% resveratrol-treated mice free of metastasis. Oral resv at 30 mg/kg. Amzng"
1:10 PM Oct 30th from web
I couldn't find any other information....
Edited by Anthony_Loera, 01 November 2009 - 02:24 AM.
Posted 01 November 2009 - 02:31 AM
He's a little late to the party.
Maybe you should sign up for my little newsletter?
Edited by opendoor, 01 November 2009 - 02:54 AM.
Posted 01 November 2009 - 03:47 AM
Edited by opendoor, 01 November 2009 - 03:48 AM.
Posted 01 November 2009 - 01:35 PM
Edited by Anthony_Loera, 01 November 2009 - 01:42 PM.
Posted 01 November 2009 - 03:55 PM
Posted 01 November 2009 - 08:05 PM
anyone have a thought on the risk of taking resveratrol and retroviruses? say a person has XMRV, HTLV or other retroviruses -- is taking resveratrol a bad idea then?
Posted 02 November 2009 - 01:09 AM
Opendoor,
It is interesting how you tell me that you don't trust me enough to to read my newsletter... and then run out to read it...
Then does that mean you trust me now?
As for your second post:
Sirtris study is aimed at colon/liver? I believe women may want human studies on breast cancer, while others would want studies on other types of cancer as well? Many others don't want to know about cancer, but longevity, or how it affects muscle and bone in older folks... wouldn't this constitute that resveratrol studies far from complete for humans?
Posted 02 November 2009 - 02:48 AM
Posted 02 November 2009 - 03:44 AM
Yes, that's pretty nice, but it was only a 3 week experiment. Still, it's a good result with a reasonable dose.NEW STUDY: Colon cancer study, Oct 27:
"3.7% control mice vs 68.7% resveratrol-treated mice free of metastasis. Oral resv at 30 mg/kg. Amzng"
This last part is interesting; the surviving mice seem to have developed an immune response against the tumor. Very cool.Mol Nutr Food Res. 2009 Oct 27. [Epub ahead of print]
Oral administration of resveratrol in suppression of pulmonary metastasis of BALB/c mice challenged with CT26 colorectal adenocarcinoma cells.
Weng YL, Liao HF, Li AF, Chang JC, Chiou RY.
Department of Food Science, National Chiayi University, Chaiyi, Taiwan.
Anti-cancer activities of resveratrol (3,4',5-trihydroxylstilbene) have attracted extensive research attention. Suppression of pulmonary metastasis of BALB/c mice challenged with CT26 colorectal adenocarcinoma cells achieved by oral administration of resveratrol was assessed in three separate experiments. Each mouse was challenged by tail vein injection with CT26 cells. Prior to challenge, 8-wk-old mice were fed with a basal diet and orally administered with resveratrol (30 mg/kg/2 days) eight or twelve times. After challenge, oral administration of resveratrol was continued until mice were sacrificed on day 20. As integrated from three experiments, 3.7% of the control mice (n=27) and 68.7% of the resveratrol-treated mice (n=26) exhibited free of metastasis. In a second study, 8-wk-old BALB/c mice were orally administered with resveratrol 12 times and challenged with CT26 cells for 100 days. All control mice died but 50% of the resveratrol-treated mice survived. The surviving mice were challenged with CT26 cells by hypodermic injection, fed with a basal diet for an additional 30 days, and sacrificed. Tumor lumps or nodules were not detected at the injection sites or in the lungs. This reveals that intrinsic vaccination-like defense has resulted from administration of resveratrol and challenge of tumor cells.
PMID: 19862773
Posted 02 November 2009 - 01:30 PM
Posted 02 November 2009 - 01:32 PM
Posted 02 November 2009 - 05:22 PM
70% seems great compared to 4% of control mice, but I wonder why not even higher like over 90%. There was a study that showed mice taking resveratrol were protected better against an alcohol related stroke than control mice. I think it was 20% had a stroke opposed to 80% of the control mice. Again, it would seem like if resveratrol is doing something effective, there would be a higher percent benefiting. Then again, in the stroke case, the mice who got strokes even with resveratrol had somewhat milder ones.
Posted 02 November 2009 - 10:40 PM
Opendoor,
Again...what you typed up in your last post does not cover all the benefits that resveratrol is considered for.
So, if your world is limited to what SRT501 is testing, then for you... it maybe correct.
However, it does not cover other types of cancer, bone density, muscle growth, feeling of well being, longevity, etc... these have not been tested in humans.
In my world, resveratrol human studies are far from over...
We expect the NIH to do some of these tests, and as mentioned before, we are helping them with one of these.
(The NIH request document is on our website if you would like to see it)
Edited by opendoor, 02 November 2009 - 10:42 PM.
Posted 02 November 2009 - 10:47 PM
(As for 70% being great, I agree, but wonder why it didn't do well with the other 30%. )
Posted 03 November 2009 - 12:17 AM
(As for 70% being great, I agree, but wonder why it didn't do well with the other 30%. )
30mg/kg is still low for a cancer-fighting dose. Another study showed optimal resveratrol effect against cancer at 180mg/kg.
This still probably wouldn't bring it to 100%. Resveratrol isn't effective against all cancers.
Posted 03 November 2009 - 01:13 AM
I'm glad the NIH is finally doing tests with resveratrol and wonder why those didn't start a couple of years ago. Wouldn't it be easy to test 2g on diabetics? Do you know why the NIH is using RevGenetics for only one of the studies? If they are doing a series, why not get it all from your company? Also, what are they testing RevGen on?
Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:48 AM
I'm glad the NIH is finally doing tests with resveratrol and wonder why those didn't start a couple of years ago. Wouldn't it be easy to test 2g on diabetics? Do you know why the NIH is using RevGenetics for only one of the studies? If they are doing a series, why not get it all from your company? Also, what are they testing RevGen on?
Wow, you like making a lot of assumptions don't ya?
A
Posted 03 November 2009 - 01:10 PM
Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:04 PM
Opendoor,
The words "Some of these tests" refer to the tests we would like them to do.
How on earth did you make the assumption I was talking about a "series"? That is all in your head.
Edited by opendoor, 03 November 2009 - 02:13 PM.
Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:17 PM
Opendoor,
Again...what you typed up in your last post does not cover all the benefits that resveratrol is considered for.
So, if your world is limited to what SRT501 is testing, then for you... it maybe correct.
However, it does not cover other types of cancer, bone density, muscle growth, feeling of well being, longevity, etc... these have not been tested in humans.
In my world, resveratrol human studies are far from over...
We expect the NIH to do some of these tests, and as mentioned before, we are helping them with one of these.
(The NIH request document is on our website if you would like to see it)
Posted 03 November 2009 - 02:29 PM
I have no new information to post for you opendoor, so I will leave you with that and take my leave from this thread for a bit.
Cheers
A
Posted 04 November 2009 - 06:41 PM
(As for 70% being great, I agree, but wonder why it didn't do well with the other 30%. )
30mg/kg is still low for a cancer-fighting dose. Another study showed optimal resveratrol effect against cancer at 180mg/kg.
This still probably wouldn't bring it to 100%. Resveratrol isn't effective against all cancers.
Why wouldn't they go higher than 30mg/kg?
Can you link the study that showed the optimal amount is 180mg/kg?
Also, how do we know for sure yet that resveratrol isn't effective for all types? That could be the case, but how has that been settled?
Treatment of 180 mg/kg resveratrol for 3 days caused 69.3% decrease of ODC activities in croton oil-induced dorsal epidermis. It was shown that resveratrol could inhibit DMBA/croton oil-induced mouse skin papilloma, which includes prolonging the latent period of tumor occurrence, decreasing the incidence of papilloma, and reducing tumor number per mouse in dose-dependent manner.
Posted 05 November 2009 - 01:44 PM
Posted 06 November 2009 - 12:16 AM
Opendoor is just nearly trolling and I think should get a warning.
You're being annoying opendoor.
Clearly that doctor is just a stock photo, and you know it, and it doesn't matter, so stop wasting space asking about it.
Posted 06 November 2009 - 12:51 AM
Posted 06 November 2009 - 01:33 AM
Opendoor, you have posted informatively before. We are here for open discussion pertaining to an exchange of knowledge regarding Resveratrol, your personal feelings regarding certain members that are well-liked and respected here, does not enhance that exchange. Please post informatively as you have previously. Thanks!
Edited by opendoor, 06 November 2009 - 01:37 AM.
Posted 06 November 2009 - 01:55 AM
anyone have a thought on the risk of taking resveratrol and retroviruses? say a person has XMRV, HTLV or other retroviruses -- is taking resveratrol a bad idea then?
SIRT1 activation seems to inhibit some kinds of retroviruses (HIV) in vitro. The mice in Sinclair's study that were infected with a lymphoma retrovirus had the same life-span whether being fed resveratrol or not. It is possible thathte pathways resveratrol inhibits or activates could possibly agonize some particular retrovirus, but in general this seems unlikely.
Posted 06 November 2009 - 02:36 AM
Edited by Anthony_Loera, 06 November 2009 - 02:50 AM.
Posted 06 November 2009 - 04:19 AM
Hehehe...
I just read your last post opendoor.
I have been known to say I was wrong about something on this board, and apologize... others will not do that. I am surprised more folks don't say you are trolling now since you don't link to the 'objectionable' content that you say made you lose trust. The only content I see, is the fact that mentioned that I believed you were an old user called Crepulance, or Holmes the guy who was a puppet for the "other" company when you first started posting...
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users