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

Photo
- - - - -

is it good to start using Resveratrol while still young or


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#31 X_Danny_X

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 344 posts
  • -2

Posted 05 November 2009 - 11:36 AM

It is like climate change, that is going through two phases: 1) Too soon to be certain, and 2) Too late to do anything about it.

For a 32 year old?? You can't be serious.

Oh come on. You think that 32 is too young for resveratrol, but 35 is OK? The number of physiological differences between a 32 year old and a 35 year old that would represent a change in the hazard of resveratrol use is... zero.

16 is too young. 24 or 25 might be a reasonable time to use it if you want, or not use it. Resveratrol is not likely to provide a significant longevity increase in humans consuming a good diet. We do have evidence that it provides benefits in both healthy humans and humans with a variety of disease states. That's the reason to use it, not longevity.


so if somebody is eating healthy and exercising, Res wont increase that individuals lifespan?

i didnt realize that there were more benefits for taking Res. what are those exactly? i remember reading the thread that Pike showed me about Cyclist just lasting longer with endurance and strength because of Res and they were past their prime, surpassing their friends and younger Cyclist who were not taking Res.

#32 maxwatt

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

Posted 05 November 2009 - 01:08 PM

It is like climate change, that is going through two phases: 1) Too soon to be certain, and 2) Too late to do anything about it.

For a 32 year old?? You can't be serious.

Oh come on. You think that 32 is too young for resveratrol, but 35 is OK? The number of physiological differences between a 32 year old and a 35 year old that would represent a change in the hazard of resveratrol use is... zero.

16 is too young. 24 or 25 might be a reasonable time to use it if you want, or not use it. Resveratrol is not likely to provide a significant longevity increase in humans consuming a good diet. We do have evidence that it provides benefits in both healthy humans and humans with a variety of disease states. That's the reason to use it, not longevity.


so if somebody is eating healthy and exercising, Res wont increase that individuals lifespan?

i didn't realize that there were more benefits for taking Res. what are those exactly? i remember reading the thread that Pike showed me about Cyclist just lasting longer with endurance and strength because of Res and they were past their prime, surpassing their friends and younger Cyclist who were not taking Res.

I believe the jury is still out on whether resveratrol can increase mammalian life span; the mice used in the one negative study were very inbred and were infected with a retrovirus that causes lymphoma; the NIA is supposedly repeating the experiment with genetically diverse mice and we may know more in two years or so. HOWEVER: the mice in Sinclair's study, though they did not live longer, were healthier by several markets: more physically vigorous, better cardiac function, and healthier, younger-looking coats. Also note that his earlier paper showed over-fed mice in Sinclair's earlier study lived longer when fed resveratrol. Most people in the West probably qualify as overfed. An overlooked finding in Sinclair's normal diet mouse study: Caloric restriction (EOD feeding) increased mouse lifespan by about 10%, but EOD feeding plus a hefty dose of resveratrol increased life-span a few per-cent more. The only way I can account for this: it is known caloric restriction (CR) protects against lymphoma in mice, resveratrol does not, but resveratrol also protected against death by another mechanism than does CR, so the two had an additive effect. If someone has an alternate explanation that better fits the facts, I'd like to hear it. In the meantime I await the results of the NIA test.

Open door: I appreciate your contribution to the group, you have added some worthwhile contributions. However I wish you wouldn't hang on Sinclair's every word as if it were gospel, particularly things he may have said off-the-cuff, or been misquoted by the media. Even if accurately reported his statements frequently seem to be speculation, or even hype to boost the reputation of Sirtirs' other compounds. His published papers are very much another matter.

A parable: my first computer was a Sinclair ZX80 I built. I actually made money writing a few programs for it, but my Sinclair has been superseded by more advanced models.

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

#33 X_Danny_X

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 344 posts
  • -2

Posted 05 November 2009 - 09:47 PM

It is like climate change, that is going through two phases: 1) Too soon to be certain, and 2) Too late to do anything about it.

For a 32 year old?? You can't be serious.

Oh come on. You think that 32 is too young for resveratrol, but 35 is OK? The number of physiological differences between a 32 year old and a 35 year old that would represent a change in the hazard of resveratrol use is... zero.

16 is too young. 24 or 25 might be a reasonable time to use it if you want, or not use it. Resveratrol is not likely to provide a significant longevity increase in humans consuming a good diet. We do have evidence that it provides benefits in both healthy humans and humans with a variety of disease states. That's the reason to use it, not longevity.


so if somebody is eating healthy and exercising, Res wont increase that individuals lifespan?

i didn't realize that there were more benefits for taking Res. what are those exactly? i remember reading the thread that Pike showed me about Cyclist just lasting longer with endurance and strength because of Res and they were past their prime, surpassing their friends and younger Cyclist who were not taking Res.

I believe the jury is still out on whether resveratrol can increase mammalian life span; the mice used in the one negative study were very inbred and were infected with a retrovirus that causes lymphoma; the NIA is supposedly repeating the experiment with genetically diverse mice and we may know more in two years or so. HOWEVER: the mice in Sinclair's study, though they did not live longer, were healthier by several markets: more physically vigorous, better cardiac function, and healthier, younger-looking coats. Also note that his earlier paper showed over-fed mice in Sinclair's earlier study lived longer when fed resveratrol. Most people in the West probably qualify as overfed. An overlooked finding in Sinclair's normal diet mouse study: Caloric restriction (EOD feeding) increased mouse lifespan by about 10%, but EOD feeding plus a hefty dose of resveratrol increased life-span a few per-cent more. The only way I can account for this: it is known caloric restriction (CR) protects against lymphoma in mice, resveratrol does not, but resveratrol also protected against death by another mechanism than does CR, so the two had an additive effect. If someone has an alternate explanation that better fits the facts, I'd like to hear it. In the meantime I await the results of the NIA test.

Open door: I appreciate your contribution to the group, you have added some worthwhile contributions. However I wish you wouldn't hang on Sinclair's every word as if it were gospel, particularly things he may have said off-the-cuff, or been misquoted by the media. Even if accurately reported his statements frequently seem to be speculation, or even hype to boost the reputation of Sirtirs' other compounds. His published papers are very much another matter.

A parable: my first computer was a Sinclair ZX80 I built. I actually made money writing a few programs for it, but my Sinclair has been superseded by more advanced models.



thanks man, so we still consider overfed/fat in the West here compare to the Europe and Asian continents? i though we improved on that. i doubt though that Caloric Restriction will work on someone who doesnt have to shed much matter from his or her body.

normally mice suffer from the same diseases we do or whatever effects them will generally effect us, and we can judge/experiment on them since they age so fast. so hopefully if it is working on some mice, Res will do so on humans.

Edited by X_Danny_X, 05 November 2009 - 09:50 PM.


#34 niner

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

Posted 05 November 2009 - 10:22 PM

Oh come on. You think that 32 is too young for resveratrol, but 35 is OK? The number of physiological differences between a 32 year old and a 35 year old that would represent a change in the hazard of resveratrol use is... zero.

Reread what I wrote. 25 to 35 is a grey area, but what is resveratrol supposed to possibly help prevent or hinder? Cancer, heart disease, strokes, arthritis and diabetes. The risk of any of these in a 32 year old is miniscule. Even at 35, the odds are very, very low, but once you reach 40 the risks have accumulated. By 50, the odds are still low, but a threat.

Mitochondrial biogenesis, for one thing. People of any age could suffer from inflammatory conditions and would benefit from NFkB suppression, among other things.

Dr. Sinclair said he thought people might want to consider drinking red wine starting at age 35 for the resveratrol benefits.

For the resveratrol benefits? This is why I think Sinclair is a bit of a clown. He's done some nice science, but he seems to be too much of a hypester.

#35 niner

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

Posted 05 November 2009 - 10:35 PM

i doubt though that Caloric Restriction will work on someone who doesnt have to shed much matter from his or her body.

normally mice suffer from the same diseases we do or whatever effects them will generally effect us, and we can judge/experiment on them since they age so fast. so hopefully if it is working on some mice, Res will do so on humans.

Actually, all the evidence says that CR works great on mammals that are not overweight. Mice are pretty different from people, but they are convenient. A lot of things that work in mice do work in people, but a lot don't. Maybe more don't than do; I don't know the exact ratio. If humans are eating a preposterously high fat, high carb diet, resveratrol probably would help them live longer, though not longer than they would if they ate a healthy diet. If you are eating a healthy diet and exercising, it's unlikely that resveratrol would increase maximal human lifespan in a statistical sense. If it resulted in you not dying of colon cancer at 50, then it very well might make you live longer. Thus it might be expected to improve average lifespan, but probably not maximum. That's cool with me since I don't expect to hit the maximum human lifespan without a LOT of help, so an increase in the average will be more helpful to me personally.

#36 opendoor

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • 0

Posted 05 November 2009 - 11:51 PM

Open door: I appreciate your contribution to the group, you have added some worthwhile contributions. However I wish you wouldn't hang on Sinclair's every word as if it were gospel, particularly things he may have said off-the-cuff, or been misquoted by the media. Even if accurately reported his statements frequently seem to be speculation, or even hype to boost the reputation of Sirtirs' other compounds. His published papers are very much another matter.

A parable: my first computer was a Sinclair ZX80 I built. I actually made money writing a few programs for it, but my Sinclair has been superseded by more advanced models.


But Dr. Sinclair hasn't been superseded by more advanced scientists. At least not yet. Anyone who has read what I've posted about Sinclair knows I don't "hang on to his every word as gospel." The 35 year old start age for starting red wine was a direct quote. Recently he has questioned why anyone is taking resveratrol supplements before more is known, a position he held for years ("Just because I take them (300mg/day) doesn't mean I recommend others do") but then started promoting Vivix and sold Sirtris to GSK. His MIT advisor wanted to wait and see before taking resveratrol, but added he might not think it is a bad idea if already very healthy. There is a range of opinions out there on this.

#37 goodman

  • Guest
  • 171 posts
  • -6

Posted 08 November 2009 - 12:41 AM

is it good to start taking Reservetrol while young and very healthy or wait until later on in life like around 45 or 50 years of age?

im currently 32 years old.

also how long can Reservetrol expand your life with you eating healthy, exercising and getting enough sleep.


At this time there is no definitive answer to your last question; even caloric restriction, the gold standard for life extension, is not known definitively to extend human life.

Experiments with mice have shown an effect on sexual maturation when administered to young mice: smaller vaginal openings earlier estrus in females. Resveratrol may block the estrogen receptors on bone growth plates, due to its estrogen mimetic structure. This would close the growth plates prematurely and lead to stunted growth. After the growth plates have closed, usually by age 24 in human males, this would not be a factor.


@ max watt: didn't we discuss this before? Taking away estrogen in a SERM like manner would even prolong the growth face and provide more longitudinal growth. But anyway, Resveratrol is such a weak Antagonist/Agonist, depending on the type of Estrogen receptor...
I take resveratrol since I'm 19. No side effects so far.

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

#38 Sims

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 November 2009 - 09:46 AM

I take it and I'm 29 - personally, I have felt healthier since I started taking a resveratrol/curcumin combination about 6 months ago. I mainly take it to counteract poor lifestyle choices, namely drinking and social smoking, although I'm very healthy otherwise, eat a great diet, and exercise very hard and very often. I have found that it also seems to improve athletic performance and my ability to "bounce back." I don't always make the best choices, and I'm aware of that, but I do want to start something early so I can continue to perform athletically at a high level well into my 40s and hopefully beyond.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users