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

Photo
- - - - -

Resveratrol might not have antiaging properties


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#1 bacopa

  • Validating
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 15 January 2010 - 06:15 PM


http://www.newscient...hink-again.html

#2 2tender

  • Guest
  • 671 posts
  • 34
  • Location:USA

Posted 15 January 2010 - 11:38 PM

Good link, but these studies were not objective. Overt Sirtuin activation was questionable from the start. That is no surprise, but Resveratrol is doing something positive with regards to stamina , strength and exercise ability. I think studies and tests in these areas would prove helpful. All these negative studies prove that some people dont want Resveratrol derivatives to be made into drugs. Human testing will be the definative context.

Edited by 2tender, 15 January 2010 - 11:41 PM.


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

#3 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,001
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 16 January 2010 - 04:07 AM

The paper they are talking about says more about the mechanism of resveratrol's actions than it does about the usefulness of the drug. No one is disputing the good effects that resveratrol has, it's just looking more and more like SIRT1 might not be part of the equation. Sirtris' analogs are quite a bit more murky, since they were designed against SIRT1 activity. But that's GSK's problem... I think that the New Scientist headline is somewhat misleading.

#4 tunt01

  • Guest, Advisor
  • 2,300 posts
  • 408
  • Location:NW

Posted 16 January 2010 - 08:58 AM

The paper they are talking about says more about the mechanism of resveratrol's actions than it does about the usefulness of the drug. No one is disputing the good effects that resveratrol has, it's just looking more and more like SIRT1 might not be part of the equation. Sirtris' analogs are quite a bit more murky, since they were designed against SIRT1 activity. But that's GSK's problem... I think that the New Scientist headline is somewhat misleading.


this was my view also.


if you all look back about a year ago, geddarkstorm wrote a good article talking about how SIRT1 was not the target of Resveratrol and how he thought it might be Napmt. I think someone else (maybe me) suggested it was AMPK.

If it's AMPK (which it appears to be), it doesn't seem that bad to me. It's definitely stamina enhancing. Is it so bad to use resveratrol for physiological stamina, like some use noots for brain function? I don't think so.

I actually became a little more interested in resveratrol once the AMPK target was delineated.

And it appears that GSK mgmt really did screwup on their purchase of Sirtris. David Sinclair snookered them big time.

#5 tunt01

  • Guest, Advisor
  • 2,300 posts
  • 408
  • Location:NW

Posted 16 January 2010 - 09:18 AM

http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=27350

fyi

#6 tonyrx7

  • Guest
  • 20 posts
  • 0

Posted 16 January 2010 - 05:17 PM

Perhaps it's just my distrust of big pharma but for few years now since GlaxoSmithKline acquisition of Sirtris I've been expecting the end of the use of the antiaging word. Antiaging and redwine was big words and got Sirtus notice but if one drug can fix all the different chronic degenerative diseases, then it would eliminate all the other existing drugs. This would cause fear to other drug companies of monopoly by GSK if reveratrol can do what Sinclair claim. GSK already has it own cancer drugs to protect GW 572016 (lapatinib), Bexxar, pazopanib, Tykerb, etc. One of the better way to eliminate your competition is to buy them out so you can control and make money from them.

I found this article today. The study was done by Pfizer and Amgen team and they are saying resveratrol is not what it hyped up to be.
Do you suppose those 2 companies that those team represent has something to fear?





http://www.thaindian..._100304665.html


Scientists cast doubt on anti-aging red wine drugs
January 16th, 2010 - 1:48 pm ICT by ANI

London, January 16 (ANI): Scientists have cast a shadow of doubt over drugs that might cheat the biology of ageing.

Separate teams led by researchers at the drugs companies Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California, and Pfizer in Groton, Connecticut have questioned the claims made on compounds including resveratrol, a much-touted component of red wine that is believed to delay old age.

The Pfizer team, reported in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, that resveratrol and other compounds failed to work as expected when they conducted a series of new experiments, reports New Scientist.

The Amgen team also concluded in Chemical Biology & Drug Design that resveratrol did not activate SIRT1, a protein implicated in ageing.

Matt Kaeberlein, University of Washington, Seattle, who was not involved in either study and has no link with any company developing anti-ageing drugs, said: “I think it’s a setback because there’s been a lot of optimism about these resveratrol-like compounds.”

But the biochemist added that even if resveratrol and the Sirtris compounds did not slow ageing, they were far from being worthless.

He added: “It may be that resveratrol-like compounds are going to be therapeutically useful in people.” (ANI)

Edited by tonyrx7, 16 January 2010 - 05:22 PM.


#7 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 17 January 2010 - 02:21 AM

Antiaging and redwine was big words and got Sirtus notice but if one drug can fix all the different chronic degenerative diseases, then it would eliminate all the other existing drugs.

Yes, and thus  the company selling the one and only True Cure would make several gazillion dollars, go down in history and save billions of people. Yes, that certainly sounds like a bad deal to me. Are you sure big pharma is suppressing "teh Cures"?  :)

Edited by kismet, 17 January 2010 - 02:21 AM.


#8 eason

  • Guest
  • 126 posts
  • 0

Posted 18 January 2010 - 01:32 AM

Too many writers publish articles on subjects they haven't researched enough. For example, how does the author explain this?:

Resveratrol and CR prevent age-related cardiac dysfunction
Cardiac function is known to decline with age in mice and humans, a factor that likely contributes to the fact that cardiac disease is one of the leading contributors to age-related disability and death. To assess left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function as well as structure, we used in vivo M-mode and Doppler echocardiography to examine cardiac function in young (five month-old) control mice and 25 month-old control, CR and resveratrol fed mice. Isovolumic relaxation time, a measure of diastolic function, was increased in aged animals (Figure 2AFigure 2), consistent with the impaired LV relaxation that occurs with normal aging in rodents and humans [12]. Both CR and resveratrol supplementation reduced the age-related increase in this parameter, though these changes were not statistically significant. We also examined the myocardial performance index, a parameter that provides an overall assessment of cardiac function [13]. An increased index value is associated with reduced cardiac performance, and this value increased significantly with age (Figure 2AFigure 2). Both CR and resveratrol supplementation almost completely prevented the age-related decrease in this parameter. Thus, resveratrol mimics the effects of CR to prevent cardiac aging at both the transcriptional and functional levels.


Confirmed in multiple studies, resveratrol's cardioprotective effects on the heart are profound... too profound for me to say "No."

#9 eason

  • Guest
  • 126 posts
  • 0

Posted 18 January 2010 - 04:30 AM

it's just looking more and more like SIRT1 might not be part of the equation. Sirtris' analogs are quite a bit more murky, since they were designed against SIRT1 activity. But that's GSK's problem...


Yes, and it's probably a very big problem. It is highly likely that resveratrol's many positive benefits are not due to gene activation alone. If GSK was banking on resveratrol analogues only because they supposed that they could produce a more potent gene activator, they may have a very big problem indeed.

Edited by eason, 18 January 2010 - 05:19 AM.


#10 tonyrx7

  • Guest
  • 20 posts
  • 0

Posted 18 January 2010 - 04:24 PM

Antiaging and redwine was big words and got Sirtus notice but if one drug can fix all the different chronic degenerative diseases, then it would eliminate all the other existing drugs.

Yes, and thus the company selling the one and only True Cure would make several gazillion dollars, go down in history and save billions of people. Yes, that certainly sounds like a bad deal to me. Are you sure big pharma is suppressing "teh Cures"? :)



It's difficult to trust any companies on what they say for many reasons, one is marketing. For example when chip makers puts out new cpu to the market they don't release their top of the line out right away. Instead, they hold back their best and it will eventually be out after a year or so. Meanwhile as consumers you are expected to play their catch up games. That means your computer will be out dated every year. This is to get those gamer to keep upgrading their cpu. Most of us who only check emails and surf the web don't upgrade but the gamer people do and chip maker knows that for long time. The differences between the fastest and the slowest is that the slowest cpu has been locked down or set to run slower or that it's lower quality chip that couldn't handle the higher speed.

Instead of selling their gamer consumers their top of the line now, why not hold it back for a year then the gamers will have to buy their "new chip" again after a year. Each time a faster cpu is release, they can place their new one at the current price range and lower the previous chip for those consumers that's been waiting for it. Why is there a saying that cpu speed doubles every year? They can predict that as long as they can release the chip to the maket this way.

Anyway back to the subject, a cure all drug is not the best interest of any drug company for the long term. Once the patent runs out, they've just killed big profit from those market for the future. Now you have generics you have to compete with.

Edited by tonyrx7, 18 January 2010 - 04:29 PM.


#11 health_nutty

  • Guest
  • 2,399 posts
  • 89
  • Location:California

Posted 18 January 2010 - 05:06 PM

It's difficult to trust any companies on what they say for many reasons, one is marketing. For example when chip makers puts out new cpu to the market they don't release their top of the line out right away. Instead, they hold back their best and it will eventually be out after a year or so. Meanwhile as consumers you are expected to play their catch up games. That means your computer will be out dated every year. This is to get those gamer to keep upgrading their cpu. Most of us who only check emails and surf the web don't upgrade but the gamer people do and chip maker knows that for long time. The differences between the fastest and the slowest is that the slowest cpu has been locked down or set to run slower or that it's lower quality chip that couldn't handle the higher speed.

Instead of selling their gamer consumers their top of the line now, why not hold it back for a year then the gamers will have to buy their "new chip" again after a year. Each time a faster cpu is release, they can place their new one at the current price range and lower the previous chip for those consumers that's been waiting for it. Why is there a saying that cpu speed doubles every year? They can predict that as long as they can release the chip to the maket this way.


The cpu thing is absolutely untrue. The CPU makers would love to release their best right away and crush the competition. There are real reasons they can't do this. Yes they *may* have engineering samples of their top of the line CPU's a six months to a year before they are released. But engineering samples don't mean they have have all the bugs out. It doesn't mean the manufacturing can produce the waifers with enough yield.

#12 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 18 January 2010 - 05:08 PM

Antiaging and redwine was big words and got Sirtus notice but if one drug can fix all the different chronic degenerative diseases, then it would eliminate all the other existing drugs.

Yes, and thus the company selling the one and only True Cure would make several gazillion dollars, go down in history and save billions of people. Yes, that certainly sounds like a bad deal to me. Are you sure big pharma is suppressing "teh Cures"? :)



It's difficult to trust any companies on what they say for many reasons, one is marketing. For example when chip makers puts out new cpu to the market they don't release their top of the line out right away. Instead, they hold back their best and it will eventually be out after a year or so. Meanwhile as consumers you are expected to play their catch up games. That means your computer will be out dated every year. This is to get those gamer to keep upgrading their cpu. Most of us who only check emails and surf the web don't upgrade but the gamer people do and chip maker knows that for long time. The differences between the fastest and the slowest is that the slowest cpu has been locked down or set to run slower or that it's lower quality chip that couldn't handle the higher speed.

Instead of selling their gamer consumers their top of the line now, why not hold it back for a year then the gamers will have to buy their "new chip" again after a year. Each time a faster cpu is release, they can place their new one at the current price range and lower the previous chip for those consumers that's been waiting for it. Why is there a saying that cpu speed doubles every year? They can predict that as long as they can release the chip to the maket this way.

Anyway back to the subject, a cure all drug is not the best interest of any drug company for the long term. Once the patent runs out, they've just killed big profit from those market for the future. Now you have generics you have to compete with.



Only difference between supplements and chips is that one can probably objectively measure the performance gain between and old chip and a new chip. With supplements, companies often have to invent new formulas, patent pending composition or other mumbo jumbo to boost their sales. Most of that mumbo jumbo can't be tested easily or objectivly.

#13 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 18 January 2010 - 06:05 PM

There is some truth to what tony says. You can slow down releases and adjust your CPU line somewhat to maximise gross margins if you are in the position to do so, but only within reasonble bounds. Sometimes and to some degree this is reflected in the overclocking potential of the chips.
This applies especially to evolutionary changes like new steppings or simple higher clocked chips, the longer you can hold back on the latter, the better for your gross margins (as a rule of thumb). So it boils down to market demand and competition...

And in fact we could take it one step further, Intel could produce 32 nm dodeca cores right now (if they had designed them and planned to do so in advance, that is), but they would not be able to sell them at a reasonable prize and make any money of 'em. 12m is stretching it but they could release most µarchs or new nodes 6 months in advance; they'd have to sell them for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars and adjust their process, however. Quality control (and physics) limits their ability to accelerate their progress beyond some limit, as health_nutty correctly pointed out.

Edited by kismet, 18 January 2010 - 06:13 PM.


#14 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,163 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 18 January 2010 - 06:17 PM

London, January 16 (ANI): Scientists have cast a shadow of doubt over drugs that might cheat the biology of ageing.


This is true for the drugs that are currently considered "drugs" in the present day definition. The substances created to fight disease (and aging) will become ever more complex in the future, and I think will help slow down or even reverse some aspects of aging, but the problem is bigger than what can be addressed with drugs alone - hence the SENS platform that encompasses all types of damage and ways to fix/repair.

#15 joe57777

  • Guest
  • 74 posts
  • 1
  • Location:NY

Posted 21 January 2010 - 08:41 AM

London, January 16 (ANI): Scientists have cast a shadow of doubt over drugs that might cheat the biology of ageing.


This is true for the drugs that are currently considered "drugs" in the present day definition. The substances created to fight disease (and aging) will become ever more complex in the future, and I think will help slow down or even reverse some aspects of aging, but the problem is bigger than what can be addressed with drugs alone - hence the SENS platform that encompasses all types of damage and ways to fix/repair.



So Mind, bottom line, after all this talk and studies, what do you suggest at this point in time would be the best drug/supplement for a 52 yr-old male to take to take for anti-aging effects on wrinkles, weight control, sex drive, and mussle mass vs body fat? These are benefits once promised by HGH and or by Testosterone or other steroids. Or is there nothing that will help to date? Do we have to just keep exercising alone with proper diet and wait for the next so-called miracle break-through supplement/drug?

Also, what do you think of carnosine as an anti-aging supplement?

Edited by joe57777, 21 January 2010 - 09:17 AM.


#16 2tender

  • Guest
  • 671 posts
  • 34
  • Location:USA

Posted 21 January 2010 - 02:04 PM

Im not answering for mind, but I would like to throw in my 2 cents worth here because, Im in this age group. Right now, I have found the combination of MCT Quercetin and Resveratrol as well as L-Carnitine/carnitine orotate and RLA/Tocotrienols to be tremendous fat reducers if used with regular exercise.

#17 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,001
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 January 2010 - 05:36 AM

London, January 16 (ANI): Scientists have cast a shadow of doubt over drugs that might cheat the biology of ageing.

This is true for the drugs that are currently considered "drugs" in the present day definition. The substances created to fight disease (and aging) will become ever more complex in the future, and I think will help slow down or even reverse some aspects of aging, but the problem is bigger than what can be addressed with drugs alone - hence the SENS platform that encompasses all types of damage and ways to fix/repair.

So Mind, bottom line, after all this talk and studies, what do you suggest at this point in time would be the best drug/supplement for a 52 yr-old male to take to take for anti-aging effects on wrinkles, weight control, sex drive, and mussle mass vs body fat? These are benefits once promised by HGH and or by Testosterone or other steroids. Or is there nothing that will help to date? Do we have to just keep exercising alone with proper diet and wait for the next so-called miracle break-through supplement/drug?

Also, what do you think of carnosine as an anti-aging supplement?

Like 2tender, not to answer for Mind... but I will anyway. He would probably tell you to optimize your diet, exercise, and get enough sleep. He might also suggest fish oil and vitamin D3. I would agree with all of that.

My advice: Much of the goal of supplementation is optimizing your nutrition. If you want to really do it right, weigh your food for a few weeks and enter it into Cron-o-meter (free software, available somewhere on the net). This will tell you what you need to supplement, and how you might need to adjust your diet.

There are other things available as supplements that go beyond standard nutrition. I use green tea and pomegranate as extracts, and cocoa and blueberries as food. I take carnosine, ALCAR, pycnogenol, vitamin K2, lutein, and a bioavailable silica, among other things.

I don't (yet) use it, but testosterone will probably help everything you mention except the wrinkles.

#18 joe57777

  • Guest
  • 74 posts
  • 1
  • Location:NY

Posted 22 January 2010 - 09:11 AM

London, January 16 (ANI): Scientists have cast a shadow of doubt over drugs that might cheat the biology of ageing.

This is true for the drugs that are currently considered "drugs" in the present day definition. The substances created to fight disease (and aging) will become ever more complex in the future, and I think will help slow down or even reverse some aspects of aging, but the problem is bigger than what can be addressed with drugs alone - hence the SENS platform that encompasses all types of damage and ways to fix/repair.

So Mind, bottom line, after all this talk and studies, what do you suggest at this point in time would be the best drug/supplement for a 52 yr-old male to take to take for anti-aging effects on wrinkles, weight control, sex drive, and mussle mass vs body fat? These are benefits once promised by HGH and or by Testosterone or other steroids. Or is there nothing that will help to date? Do we have to just keep exercising alone with proper diet and wait for the next so-called miracle break-through supplement/drug?

Also, what do you think of carnosine as an anti-aging supplement?

Like 2tender, not to answer for Mind... but I will anyway. He would probably tell you to optimize your diet, exercise, and get enough sleep. He might also suggest fish oil and vitamin D3. I would agree with all of that.

My advice: Much of the goal of supplementation is optimizing your nutrition. If you want to really do it right, weigh your food for a few weeks and enter it into Cron-o-meter (free software, available somewhere on the net). This will tell you what you need to supplement, and how you might need to adjust your diet.

There are other things available as supplements that go beyond standard nutrition. I use green tea and pomegranate as extracts, and cocoa and blueberries as food. I take carnosine, ALCAR, pycnogenol, vitamin K2, lutein, and a bioavailable silica, among other things.

I don't (yet) use it, but testosterone will probably help everything you mention except the wrinkles.


Thanks for those suggestions. I get plenty of exercise especially from 4-1 to about 10-1. I highly believe in D3. There is a D3 formula they advertise on a radio program that also has another ingredient that is suppose to compliment the D3. I can't think of it off hand if anybody knows what I am talking about I would appreciate the feedback. I would like to get a proper dosing of carnosine since I have read all good things about it. They need to come up with something that renews cells from the inside and therefore can take care of wrinkles on the outside. They are supposedly working on some kind on gene mitochondria rejuvenation process. Who knows what year that will come out. The only thing with Testosterone is that I am worried that it will speed up the process or cause prostate cancer.

Also, if anyone wants to pm me to exactly what they are taking and what doses, I will check with my doctor to see if I can start a program. Please include, of course, what benefits you are actually experiencing by your particular program.

I was really disappointed that resveratrol turned out to be not what we thought it was. That was frustrating, because I started a supplement regimen program last spring, but I stopped in just a couple months when I learned resveratrol was not doing what I expected it to do. Does anything else activate SRT1 and or SRT2? Also, is there any benefit to taking any form of HGH that does not involve shots, that might just be able to stimulate the pituitary gland to get some benefit from it? Why is it that athletics were and may still be taking HGH? I thought shots can be dangerous if you get too much. Anybody know the truth or anything good about HGH?





#19 Logan

  • Guest
  • 1,869 posts
  • 172
  • Location:Arlington, VA

Posted 22 January 2010 - 09:22 AM

London, January 16 (ANI): Scientists have cast a shadow of doubt over drugs that might cheat the biology of ageing.

This is true for the drugs that are currently considered "drugs" in the present day definition. The substances created to fight disease (and aging) will become ever more complex in the future, and I think will help slow down or even reverse some aspects of aging, but the problem is bigger than what can be addressed with drugs alone - hence the SENS platform that encompasses all types of damage and ways to fix/repair.

So Mind, bottom line, after all this talk and studies, what do you suggest at this point in time would be the best drug/supplement for a 52 yr-old male to take to take for anti-aging effects on wrinkles, weight control, sex drive, and mussle mass vs body fat? These are benefits once promised by HGH and or by Testosterone or other steroids. Or is there nothing that will help to date? Do we have to just keep exercising alone with proper diet and wait for the next so-called miracle break-through supplement/drug?

Also, what do you think of carnosine as an anti-aging supplement?

Like 2tender, not to answer for Mind... but I will anyway. He would probably tell you to optimize your diet, exercise, and get enough sleep. He might also suggest fish oil and vitamin D3. I would agree with all of that.

My advice: Much of the goal of supplementation is optimizing your nutrition. If you want to really do it right, weigh your food for a few weeks and enter it into Cron-o-meter (free software, available somewhere on the net). This will tell you what you need to supplement, and how you might need to adjust your diet.

There are other things available as supplements that go beyond standard nutrition. I use green tea and pomegranate as extracts, and cocoa and blueberries as food. I take carnosine, ALCAR, pycnogenol, vitamin K2, lutein, and a bioavailable silica, among other things.

I don't (yet) use it, but testosterone will probably help everything you mention except the wrinkles.


No Resveratrol?

#20 s123

  • Director
  • 1,333 posts
  • 992
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 22 January 2010 - 10:31 AM

I'm not surprised.

Furthermore, in 2007 it was discovered that resveratrol significantly shortens the lifespan of D. melanogaster. Pearson et al. then (in 2008) proved that although resveratrol had positive effects on health, it did not extend the lifespan of mice on a normal diet.

Bass TM, Weinkove D, Houthoofd K, Gems D, and Partridge L. Effects of resveratrol on lifespan in Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans. Mech Ageing Dev., 2007, 128(10): 546-552.

Pearson et al. Resveratrol delays age-related deterioration and mimics transcriptional aspects of dietary restriction without extending life span. Cell Metab., 2008, 8(2): 157-168.

Edited by s123, 22 January 2010 - 10:46 AM.


#21 Logan

  • Guest
  • 1,869 posts
  • 172
  • Location:Arlington, VA

Posted 22 January 2010 - 10:58 AM

I'm not surprised.

Furthermore, in 2007 it was discovered that resveratrol significantly shortens the lifespan of D. melanogaster. Pearson et al. then (in 2008) proved that although resveratrol had positive effects on health, it did not extend the lifespan of mice on a normal diet.

Bass TM, Weinkove D, Houthoofd K, Gems D, and Partridge L. Effects of resveratrol on lifespan in Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans. Mech Ageing Dev., 2007, 128(10): 546-552.

Pearson et al. Resveratrol delays age-related deterioration and mimics transcriptional aspects of dietary restriction without extending life span. Cell Metab., 2008, 8(2): 157-168.


Umm, I'm not going to put much credence in a resveratrol study done on the common fruit fly

#22 s123

  • Director
  • 1,333 posts
  • 992
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 22 January 2010 - 11:29 AM

I'm not surprised.

Furthermore, in 2007 it was discovered that resveratrol significantly shortens the lifespan of D. melanogaster. Pearson et al. then (in 2008) proved that although resveratrol had positive effects on health, it did not extend the lifespan of mice on a normal diet.

Bass TM, Weinkove D, Houthoofd K, Gems D, and Partridge L. Effects of resveratrol on lifespan in Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans. Mech Ageing Dev., 2007, 128(10): 546-552.

Pearson et al. Resveratrol delays age-related deterioration and mimics transcriptional aspects of dietary restriction without extending life span. Cell Metab., 2008, 8(2): 157-168.


Umm, I'm not going to put much credence in a resveratrol study done on the common fruit fly


And the evidence that it works comes from ... obese mice and worms! I'm reassured.

#23 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,828 posts
  • 148
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 22 January 2010 - 11:47 AM

I guess resveratrol not much food those of us already leading a healthy lifestyle. For the majority of the population who are fat or obese... just like those mice. Could be a good thing, :-)

#24 s123

  • Director
  • 1,333 posts
  • 992
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 22 January 2010 - 12:16 PM

I guess resveratrol not much food those of us already leading a healthy lifestyle. For the majority of the population who are fat or obese... just like those mice. Could be a good thing, :-)


True, resveratrol is a CR mimic so you won't benefit much when you already do CR. And CR is still better (has much more evidence) than resveratrol.

#25 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 22 January 2010 - 01:00 PM

I guess resveratrol not much food those of us already leading a healthy lifestyle. For the majority of the population who are fat or obese... just like those mice. Could be a good thing, :-)


True, resveratrol is a CR mimic so you won't benefit much when you already do CR. And CR is still better (has much more evidence) than resveratrol.


Too many writers publish articles on subjects they haven't researched enough. For example, how does the author explain this?:


Resveratrol and CR prevent age-related cardiac dysfunction
Cardiac function is known to decline with age in mice and humans, a factor that likely contributes to the fact that cardiac disease is one of the leading contributors to age-related disability and death. To assess left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic function as well as structure, we used in vivo M-mode and Doppler echocardiography to examine cardiac function in young (five month-old) control mice and 25 month-old control, CR and resveratrol fed mice. Isovolumic relaxation time, a measure of diastolic function, was increased in aged animals (Figure 2AFigure 2), consistent with the impaired LV relaxation that occurs with normal aging in rodents and humans [12]. Both CR and resveratrol supplementation reduced the age-related increase in this parameter, though these changes were not statistically significant. We also examined the myocardial performance index, a parameter that provides an overall assessment of cardiac function [13]. An increased index value is associated with reduced cardiac performance, and this value increased significantly with age (Figure 2AFigure 2). Both CR and resveratrol supplementation almost completely prevented the age-related decrease in this parameter. Thus, resveratrol mimics the effects of CR to prevent cardiac aging at both the transcriptional and functional levels.

Confirmed in multiple studies, resveratrol's cardioprotective effects on the heart are profound... too profound for me to say "No."


Below a quote from the same study. Besides that, read the full study and then read your remarks again. A profound effect??
http://www.ncbi.nlm....67/?tool=pubmed

& from the same study:

A Low Dose of Dietary Resveratrol Partially Mimics Caloric Restriction and Retards Aging Parameters in Mice
"In particular, spontaneous liver tumors were abundant in mice fed the control diet or resveratrol, but rare in CR mice."

"Our findings that a low dose of resveratrol partially mimics CR at the gene expression level and leads to prevention of some age-related parameters suggests that clinical trials with resveratrol should be conducted to test the relevance of these findings to humans."


Resveratrol and rapamycin: are they anti-aging drugs? (see attachement)

Attached Files


Edited by drmz, 22 January 2010 - 01:05 PM.


#26 Ringostarr

  • Guest
  • 87 posts
  • 8

Posted 22 January 2010 - 03:44 PM

I guess resveratrol not much food those of us already leading a healthy lifestyle. For the majority of the population who are fat or obese... just like those mice. Could be a good thing, :-)


The reality is that more and more of the world is adopting the western diet. There is and will continue to be a great need for resveratrol. I am amazed at how few people know about it. If Big Phama can't make money on it they are not going to promote it....sad. Especially considering there are many people who would benefit greatly from taking resveratrol right now.

#27 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 22 January 2010 - 04:46 PM

I guess resveratrol not much food those of us already leading a healthy lifestyle. For the majority of the population who are fat or obese... just like those mice. Could be a good thing, :-)


The reality is that more and more of the world is adopting the western diet. There is and will continue to be a great need for resveratrol. I am amazed at how few people know about it. If Big Phama can't make money on it they are not going to promote it....sad. Especially considering there are many people who would benefit greatly from taking resveratrol right now.



Just a quote from the above paper:

To date, it remains unclear whether resveratrol or sirtuinactivating
compounds have significant biologic effects in
humans. In the mouse obesity studies, very high doses of
resveratrol were used, and questions have been raised
regarding the bioavailability of resveratrol. Although marketing
of unregulated ‘‘anti-aging’’ supplements that contain
resveratrol has proven to be a lucrative business, there is little
indication that supplementation with resveratrol has health
consequences – either positive or negative – in people.


Seems too early to state that there are many people who would benefit from taking res right now. I think people have better studied options (and much cheaper options) to improve their general health. So far resveratrol is nothing but alot of speculation, here and there some anecdotes, but still no solid human data out there. Even the non-human data is not that solid more questions than answers 4sure what that data would mean for a human.

Edited by drmz, 22 January 2010 - 04:56 PM.


#28 eason

  • Guest
  • 126 posts
  • 0

Posted 22 January 2010 - 05:45 PM

Below a quote from the same study. Besides that, read the full study and then read your remarks again. A profound effect??
http://www.ncbi.nlm....67/?tool=pubmed

& from the same study:

A Low Dose of Dietary Resveratrol Partially Mimics Caloric Restriction and Retards Aging Parameters in Mice
"In particular, spontaneous liver tumors were abundant in mice fed the control diet or resveratrol, but rare in CR mice."

"Our findings that a low dose of resveratrol partially mimics CR at the gene expression level and leads to prevention of some age-related parameters suggests that clinical trials with resveratrol should be conducted to test the relevance of these findings to humans."


And??? So what? I've read the entire study. My remarks are on studies showing cardioprotection in healthy, non-overweight mice and primates. Yes, its effects on the heart so far are profound. I never said resveratrol was a cure-all.

#29 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 184 posts
  • 14

Posted 22 January 2010 - 06:18 PM

The article does not support the idea that resveratrol does not have antiaging properties.

It never made much sense to me that all (or any) of the effects of resveratrol were due to SIRTs.


Here is something I posted back in 2007:

Once Sirt 1 is activated, would discontinuing use of Resveratrol deactivate it in humans? I realize there isn't much info on this, but what about in animal trials?


Regarding the SIRT1 activation, I'm not 100% convinced that it is responsible for all of the beneficial effects of resveratrol. It's been established that SIRT1 is activated by resveratrol and also by caloric restriction. But might it be a side effect that has nothing to do with the beneficial effects? The correlation of SIRT1 with beneficial health effects is there, so SIRTRIS may be on the right track by looking at factors that activate it, but it seems to me like there has to be more to the story than just the SIRTs.



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

#30 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 22 January 2010 - 06:35 PM

Below a quote from the same study. Besides that, read the full study and then read your remarks again. A profound effect??
http://www.ncbi.nlm....67/?tool=pubmed

& from the same study:

A Low Dose of Dietary Resveratrol Partially Mimics Caloric Restriction and Retards Aging Parameters in Mice
"In particular, spontaneous liver tumors were abundant in mice fed the control diet or resveratrol, but rare in CR mice."

"Our findings that a low dose of resveratrol partially mimics CR at the gene expression level and leads to prevention of some age-related parameters suggests that clinical trials with resveratrol should be conducted to test the relevance of these findings to humans."


And??? So what? I've read the entire study. My remarks are on studies showing cardioprotection in healthy, non-overweight mice and primates. Yes, its effects on the heart so far are profound. I never said resveratrol was a cure-all.


Can you gimme some links to the primate studies & the healthy non-overweight mice? Sounds interesting, have some time left this weekend to read them.

Edited by drmz, 22 January 2010 - 06:37 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users