• 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
⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#31 sagecucumber

  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • -1

Posted 22 January 2010 - 11:42 PM

Regardless of any studies, I know rsv has been good for me. If I don't live any longer for taking it, that's fine with me because I'm certain it has improved the quality of my life.

#32 Logan

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

Posted 22 January 2010 - 11:44 PM

Regardless of any studies, I know rsv has been good for me. If I don't live any longer for taking it, that's fine with me because I'm certain it has improved the quality of my life.


I what ways do you feel it has improved your quality of life and how old are you(if you don't mind revealing)?

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

#33 joe57777

  • Guest
  • 74 posts
  • 1
  • Location:NY

Posted 23 January 2010 - 05:58 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.


Also, what I found very discouraging, is that I read in the last few days that were newly concluded studies that have proven that CR does not add enough years to human lifespan to matter. So then, the idea of CR being some sort of an ideal "life extention marker" for substances to try and "mimic" such like what resveratrol was recently suppose to do, as it turns out even if reveratrol did "mimic" CR it would not have been that big of a deal anyway! We need to find another supplement that activates SRT1, SRT 2, and anything and everthing else that keeps cells from distruction while at the same time finding a way to get all the chemicals in the body that deplete with age back up to normal levels. Also, we know when we are growing from birth our cells are reproducing faster than they are dying off. When we pass a certain age (maybe 21) our cells are dying as fast as they are reproducing. When we get much older there is a point where our cells are dying faster than they are reproducing. What we obviously need to try and maintain the very best way we can, is the middle theory, where we can control our cells to reproduce as fast as they are dying. If we can somehow do this, we would not age no more than somewhere between 21 and say maybe 40.

Can anyone add to this?

⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#34 health_nutty

  • Guest
  • 2,399 posts
  • 88
  • Location:California

Posted 23 January 2010 - 07:09 AM

Silymarin and EGCG (found in green tea) are SIRT1 activators.

#35 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,944 posts
  • 1,616
  • Location:New York

Posted 23 January 2010 - 11:59 AM

Resveratrol does not directly activate SIRT1, but promotes a conformational change by binding to the molecule that improves activation by things that DO activate SIRT1.(1) NAD+ is the substance that activates SIRT1(2), and higher NAD/NADH ratios have been associated with longevity.

Resveratrol has not extended the lifespan of mice on a normal (ie, not high fat) lab diet. They die overwhelming of cancer due to genetic factors. CR inhibits this cancer development, resveratrol does not. Resveratrol has extended lifespan in another vertebrate, a short-lived fish that dies a genetically programmed death. Even in the mice, resveratrol improved a number of parameters, such that the old resveratrol fed mice appeared more vigorous and healthy than the controls(6).

Resveratrol at low doses increases the activation of SIRT1; CR but not low dose resveratrol induces PGC-1a transcriptional targets(3). Higher dose resveratrol however has been reported to induce PGC-1a transcriptional targets(4,5).

The studies seem to indicate that resveratrol alone is insufficient to extend lifespan (in mice), though it improves a number of parameters associated with health and increased lifespan.

1. J Biol Chem. 2005 Apr 29;280(17):17187-95. Epub 2005 Mar 4.
Mechanism of human SIRT1 activation by resveratrol.
Borra MT, Smith BC, Denu JM. Department of Biomolecular Chemistry, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA.
PMID: 15749705

2. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009 Oct 30. [Epub ahead of print]
SIRT1-dependent regulation of chromatin and transcription: Linking NAD(+) metabolism and signaling to the control of cellular functions.
Zhang T, Kraus WL. Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Cornell University, 465 Biotechnology Building, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA.
PMID: 19879981

3. PLoS One. 2008 Jun 4;3(6):e2264.
A low dose of dietary resveratrol partially mimics caloric restriction and retards aging parameters in mice.
Barger JL, Kayo T, Vann JM, Arias EB, Wang J, Hacker TA, Wang Y, Raederstorff D, Morrow JD, Leeuwenburgh C, Allison DB, Saupe KW, Cartee GD, Weindruch R, Prolla TA. LifeGen Technologies, LLC, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America.
PMID: 18523577

4. Baur JA, Pearson KJ, Price NL, Jamieson HA, Lerin C, et al. (2006) Resveratrol
improves health and survival of mice on a high-calorie diet. Nature 444:
337–342.

5. Lagouge M, Argmann C, Gerhart-Hines Z, Meziane H, Lerin C, et al. (2006)
Resveratrol improves mitochondrial function and protects against metabolic
disease by activating SIRT1 and PGC-1alpha. Cell 127: 1109–1122.

6. Cell Metab. 2008 Aug;8(2):157-68. Epub 2008 Jul 3.
Resveratrol delays age-related deterioration and mimics transcriptional aspects of dietary restriction without extending life span.
Pearson KJ, Baur JA, Lewis KN, Peshkin L, Price NL, Labinskyy N, Swindell WR, Kamara D, Minor RK, Perez E, Jamieson HA, Zhang Y, Dunn SR, Sharma K, Pleshko N, Woollett LA, Csiszar A, Ikeno Y, Le Couteur D, Elliott PJ, Becker KG, Navas P, Ingram DK, Wolf NS, Ungvari Z, Sinclair DA, de Cabo R.
PMID: 18599363
  • like x 1

#36 niner

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

Posted 24 January 2010 - 06:25 AM

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.

I like the mitochondrial biogenesis that's been observed in mice as well as in human athletes. (At least the enhanced endurance observed is consistent with more mitochondria.) The gene expression data comparing resveratrol to CR is interesting. The anti-inflammatory effects reported by many people are a plus for some of us. Suppression of blood glucose is another positive effect observed in humans. (At least it's positive for most people, but bad if you're hypoglycemic.) I don't think the authors of this paper have much knowledge of actual application of resveratrol in humans. Maybe they should stop in here...

#37 pycnogenol

  • Guest
  • 1,164 posts
  • 72
  • Location:In a van down by the river!

Posted 24 January 2010 - 03:35 PM

I don't take resveratrol for so-called "anti-aging" purposes but rather for glucose management and so far I've found it helpful.

#38 sagecucumber

  • Guest
  • 32 posts
  • -1

Posted 26 January 2010 - 12:20 AM

Regardless of any studies, I know rsv has been good for me. If I don't live any longer for taking it, that's fine with me because I'm certain it has improved the quality of my life.


I'm 45 years old. At the age of 36 my body started betraying me. By 39 my body weight had dropped from the low 190's too 156! For me, that's a bad thing. I started taking resv a little less than 2 years ago, after a few months I noticed all my injuries were not quite so bothersome anymore and I was able to start increasing weights in the weight room. Injuries continued to improve, one is basically gone now (my knee), the others have improved enough that I can train most movements at 100%. My body weight is back up to a lean 188.

Another thing I attribute to resv is at the same age of about 36 I started catching 3 to 5 colds per year. Before when I caught colds they were no big deal. These colds were developing coughs that kept me up all night and made me completely miserable. I dreaded just having to talk to someone on the phone at work. Since taking resv I've had exactly one cold and it was one of the mild, non-bothersome type from my younger days. In addition, I kind of think I only caught that one cold because I started messing with my dose. I had upped my dose from 300 mg to 600mg only a week or two before catching that cold. I'm now back to 300mg.

Finally, I'm hornier when I take resv and I like being horny.

Edit: Sorry, I accidently responded to my own post. I meant to respond to Morganator.

Edited by sagecucumber, 26 January 2010 - 12:22 AM.


#39 2tender

  • Guest
  • 672 posts
  • 34
  • Location:USA

Posted 26 January 2010 - 05:58 AM

At this point, Im not going for any inconclusive "chicken little" rhetoric about Resveratrol not being "anti-aging"! I took it regularly for a year. Unlike the other supplements in my regimen, I took it consistently. I recently stopped taking it for a few weeks concurrent with a break from exercise. Today I re-started, I took 1 cap of Nitro 250, 1 cap of MCT-Q, approx. 300 mgs of M98, the same amount of Toco-8, some Creatine, Whey and Glutamine mixed with a large glass of juice 30 minutes before an hour long weight workout. I definately felt it working during and after the session. It undoubtedly enhances stamina and endorphin release. Resveratrol does do something positive for me on a consistent level. I think these recent negative reports are veiled attacks on the Resveratrol industry. CBS news program "60 Minutes" is a more than credible source of accurate information, if they featured it, you can bet there is something to it. Dr. Sinclair and other professional experts have essentially bet their careers on it.

⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#40 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 26 January 2010 - 08:43 AM

At this point, Im not going for any inconclusive "chicken little" rhetoric about Resveratrol not being "anti-aging"! I took it regularly for a year. Unlike the other supplements in my regimen, I took it consistently. I recently stopped taking it for a few weeks concurrent with a break from exercise. Today I re-started, I took 1 cap of Nitro 250, 1 cap of MCT-Q, approx. 300 mgs of M98, the same amount of Toco-8, some Creatine, Whey and Glutamine mixed with a large glass of juice 30 minutes before an hour long weight workout. I definately felt it working during and after the session. It undoubtedly enhances stamina and endorphin release. Resveratrol does do something positive for me on a consistent level. I think these recent negative reports are veiled attacks on the Resveratrol industry. CBS news program "60 Minutes" is a more than credible source of accurate information, if they featured it, you can bet there is something to it. Dr. Sinclair and other professional experts have essentially bet their careers on it.



Pubmed is the best source, not CBS news or Dr Sinclair. There are no veiled attacks, just comments based on what information is out there. Think people are starting to grasp the idea that the red wine wonder pill thing was one big hype, or as michael called it " the Sysiphean cycle of the absolute latest supplement marketing hype scientific breakthrough "

Edited by drmz, 26 January 2010 - 08:58 AM.


#41 Ringostarr

  • Guest
  • 87 posts
  • 8

Posted 26 January 2010 - 04:58 PM

At this point, Im not going for any inconclusive "chicken little" rhetoric about Resveratrol not being "anti-aging"! I took it regularly for a year. Unlike the other supplements in my regimen, I took it consistently. I recently stopped taking it for a few weeks concurrent with a break from exercise. Today I re-started, I took 1 cap of Nitro 250, 1 cap of MCT-Q, approx. 300 mgs of M98, the same amount of Toco-8, some Creatine, Whey and Glutamine mixed with a large glass of juice 30 minutes before an hour long weight workout. I definately felt it working during and after the session. It undoubtedly enhances stamina and endorphin release. Resveratrol does do something positive for me on a consistent level. I think these recent negative reports are veiled attacks on the Resveratrol industry. CBS news program "60 Minutes" is a more than credible source of accurate information, if they featured it, you can bet there is something to it. Dr. Sinclair and other professional experts have essentially bet their careers on it.



Pubmed is the best source, not CBS news or Dr Sinclair. There are no veiled attacks, just comments based on what information is out there. Think people are starting to grasp the idea that the red wine wonder pill thing was one big hype, or as michael called it " the Sysiphean cycle of the absolute latest supplement marketing hype scientific breakthrough "


Not sure why you would call resveratrol one big hype? What studies have you seen that show it is a hype? It has, in animal models, prevented many of the diseases of aging. In humans, the research is slow but promising.

#42 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 26 January 2010 - 08:14 PM

At this point, Im not going for any inconclusive "chicken little" rhetoric about Resveratrol not being "anti-aging"! I took it regularly for a year. Unlike the other supplements in my regimen, I took it consistently. I recently stopped taking it for a few weeks concurrent with a break from exercise. Today I re-started, I took 1 cap of Nitro 250, 1 cap of MCT-Q, approx. 300 mgs of M98, the same amount of Toco-8, some Creatine, Whey and Glutamine mixed with a large glass of juice 30 minutes before an hour long weight workout. I definately felt it working during and after the session. It undoubtedly enhances stamina and endorphin release. Resveratrol does do something positive for me on a consistent level. I think these recent negative reports are veiled attacks on the Resveratrol industry. CBS news program "60 Minutes" is a more than credible source of accurate information, if they featured it, you can bet there is something to it. Dr. Sinclair and other professional experts have essentially bet their careers on it.



Pubmed is the best source, not CBS news or Dr Sinclair. There are no veiled attacks, just comments based on what information is out there. Think people are starting to grasp the idea that the red wine wonder pill thing was one big hype, or as michael called it " the Sysiphean cycle of the absolute latest supplement marketing hype scientific breakthrough "


Not sure why you would call resveratrol one big hype? What studies have you seen that show it is a hype? It has, in animal models, prevented many of the diseases of aging. In humans, the research is slow but promising.


This pretty much sums it up. No human data, alot of in vitro studies, some mouse studies (mosty fat mice), but nothing big pointing to the need to spend #360 dollar a year on a pill which, as the attached december 2009 paper from the University of Washington states, has little indication that supplementation with resveratrol has health consequences - either positive or negative- in people. We're simply not mice. They also mention the markerting hype (as alot of other papers/studies seem to mention in there "discussion part) And if you don't believe them, just look around you and read resveratrol vendors websites....there is an awful lot of marketing bullshit on it, complemented with an agressive SEO marketing campaigns, landing ("" Markus"" site for example) sites and more of that. Most scientist come to the same conclusion as the remarks from the washinton university paper below ( there is little indication that supplementation with resveratrol has health consequences – either positive or negative – in people) but alot of people seem to intentionally miss that.
Resveratrol is the magic pill of the testtubes, but testtubes don't have any money to spend.


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.


Michael wrote about it over here, maybe a good read:

J Mol Signal (2007): "Resveratrol either alone or in combination with TRAIL or Smac can be used for the prevention and/or treatment of human prostate cancer."

We have previously shown that prostate cancer LNCaP cells are resistant to [the apoptotic cell death ligand] TRAIL, and downregulation of the PI-3K/Akt [cell survival/proliferation] pathway by molecular and pharmacological means sensitizes cells to undergo apoptosis by TRAIL and curcumin. The purpose of this study was to examine the molecular mechanisms by which resveratrol sensitized TRAIL-resistant LNCaP cells.

Resveratrol inhibited growth and induced apoptosis in androgen-dependent LNCaP cells, but had no effect on normal human prostate epithelial cells. Resveratrol upregulated the expression of [numerous apoptosis genes] and downregulated the expression of [several antiapoptotic ones].

Treatment of LNCaP cells with resveratrol resulted in generation of reactive oxygen species, translocation of Bax and p53 to mitochondria, subsequent drop in mitochondrial membrane potential, release of mitochondrial [apoptosis-associated] proteins ..., activation of caspase-3 and caspase-9 and induction of apoptosis. The ability of resveratrol to sensitize TRAIL-resistant LNCaP cells was inhibited by ... [the antioxidant] N-acetyl cysteine.

First, this is an in vitro study, which I will dismiss as having any bearing on the in vivo effects of resveratrol supplementation with a song in my heart: while such studies of small molecules are of course always suspect, and should be used at most as screens for in vivo testing and preliminary mechanistic studies to explain established in vivo effects, resveratrol is exceptionally fraught in this regard because of its low bioavailability and and difficult-to-predict biotransformation and tissue disposition. This is even more worrisome in light of the apparent 'inverted-U' dose-response curve of resveratrol on recombinant human SIRT1 activation in vitro(1). I therefore strongly suggest that we should pay essentially heed to such studies on any question of real import in making health decisions about resveratrol supplementation.

Moreover, they don't here explore effects of resveratrol on SIRT1 at all, so this study does nothing to address the questions of SIRT1's role in cancer or aging. Indeed, the effects on the cancer cell (induction of apoptosis) seem if anything to be exactly opposite of what one would predict from SIRT1 activation; moreover, they provide evidence that the mechanism underlying the effect is ROS generation, which would seem to be sufficient explanation for an increase in apoptosis.

I got most of the way thru' the remainder of these studies, basically repeating myself and adding a few additional, minor points, but I rapidly realized that it would just get boring ; suffice it to say that the same basic critique applies to nearly all of the referenced studies. Here are a couple of additional comments on a couple of them:

Cancer Res (2007): "resveratrol ... has been shown to inhibit prostate cancer cell growth [...] These results show that MSKE and resveratrol target distinct pathways to inhibit prostate cancer cell growth."

Note, first, that this too was an in vitro study; see above. Then note that they used different PCa cell lines ("RWPE-1, WPE1-NA22, WPE1-NB14, and WPE1-NB26, representing different stages of prostate cancer progression"), and that the effects in these models were the opposite of those in the androgen-sensitive LNCaP cells used in the above report:

Resveratrol did not induce apoptosis in this model but arrested cells at the G(1)-S phase transition of the cell cycle associated with increased expression of p21 and decreased expression of cyclin D1 and cyclin-dependent kinase 4 proteins.

This is again the opposite of what we might expect from an activator of SIRT1, an issue which is again unaddressed; the inconsistency in results, moreover, underscores the need for a great deal of skepticism in relying on in vitro results, especially with a compound like resveratrol. On the other hand, it is consistent with observations in some of the other in vitro studies quoted (notably (14), and the J Androl study immediately below) that the effects of resveratrol vary with the androgen-sensitivity of the line -- consistent with a possible phytoestrogenic mechanism, to which subject I shall return.

J Androl (2007): "Resveratrol ... [has] reported anticarcinogenic effects. [...] Resveratrol induced a decrease in proliferation rates and an increase in apoptosis in [ prostate ] cancer cell lines in a dose- and time-dependent manner."

Again, this was a test-tube study; again, no direct information about SIRT1; and again, the results give internal reasons for us to have doubts about what they might imply, even assuming their in vivo translatability, for prostate cancer:

We studied the molecular mechanism of resveratrol-induced apoptosis and proliferation arrest in prostate derived cells PZ-HPV-7 (nontumorigenic line), LNCaP (androgen-sensitive cancer line), and PC-3 (androgen-insensitive cancer line). ... In addition, the specific differences found between LNCaP and PC-3 suggest that resveratrol acts through different mechanisms upon the androgen or estrogen receptor cell status.

Remember this last comment when we come to the TRAMP mouse study, below.


Prostate (2007): "Resveratrol, a dietary component with chemopreventive properties has been reported to resensitize a variety of cancer cell types to apoptosis. [...] Pre-treatment with resveratrol sensitized PC-3 and DU145 cells to agents that specifically target death receptors (TRAIL, Fas, TNFalpha) but not agents that initiate apoptosis through other mechanisms (Etoposide, Paclitaxel, Tunicamycin, Thapsigargin). Resveratrol pre-treatment altered the expression of [anti-caspase] IAPs ["Inhibitor of Apoptosis "] and Bax, and decreased Akt phosphorylation in PC-3 cells, leading to increased caspase activation and apoptosis. ... Use of resveratrol or inhibition of Akt phosphorylation may represent an important therapeutic approach in combination with conventional therapies for the treatment of prostate cancer.


This is consistent with the first study, above (qv); additionally, however, even if the study has any bearing on the in vivo effects of resveratrol supplementation, it would only apply to the use of resveratrol as a complementary therapy to chemotherapy drugs, not to the effects on risk or progression of the "natural" disease.


Anticancer Res (2000): "it would appear that the prostate tumor marker PSA is down regulated by resveratrol."


Again, of course, this is test-tube stuff. But also, PSA is at best a diagnostic risk factor, and its lowering is at [b]best[/i] might turn out to be a surrogate marker for efficacy of some intervention, if and only if such an association can be documented. Such has not been done yet for resveratrol or anything else, and (for example) the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT)(5), a large, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that tested the efficacy of finasteride (Proscar®) as a chemopreventive for PCa based on its inhibition of 5-alpha-reductase and lowering of PSA levels, found that whereas men in the active group were 24.8% less likely to develop the disease over the seven-year period, those tumors that they did develop were more likely to be high-grade malignancies (37% vs 22% of tumors). This result has been controversial, with some post hoc analyses suggesting an artifact (6,7), but there have been other cases of things reducing the incidence of total PCa but increasing the risk of high-grade tumors, such as obesity (8), heavy multivitamin use (9), and (as we will see) soy (4). Moreover, if the proposed mechanism in this case --

It's also worth noting once again that there is no good evidence to date that 'shotgun' PSA screening (rather than targeted diagnostic use in individuals for whom there is a specific reason to suspect disease) improves overall health outcomes (including risk of death) in the men that undergo it, and leads to a large number of false positives, unnecessary biopsies, and even unnecessary prostatectomies (with attendant risk of impotence and incontinence) for "cancers" that would never, in the natural course of the disease and in the absence of radical anti-aging biomedicine, develop into a life-threatening disease not evidence of disease. See for instance the Centers for Disease Control's guidance on PSA testing:

Although there is good evidence that PSA screening can detect early-stage prostate cancer, evidence is mixed and inconclusive about whether early detection improves health outcomes. Additionally, prostate cancer screening is associated with important harms, which include anxiety and follow-up procedures based on test results that sometimes are false-positive, as well as the complications that may result from treating prostate cancers that, if left untreated, might not have affected the man's health.

Because current evidence is insufficient to determine whether the potential benefits of prostate cancer screening outweigh important harms, there is no scientific consensus that such screening is beneficial.

Now we come to the one in vivo study:

Quote:
Carcinogenesis (2007): "Resveratrol, a natural polyphenolic phytochemical, has been reported to act as an antioxidant and provide anticancer activities. [...] Resveratrol in the diet significantly reduced the incidence of poorly differentiated prostatic adenocarcinoma by 7.7-fold."(12)


This study (12) was performed in Transgenic Adenocarcinoma Mouse Prostate (TRAMP) mice, offering the hope of a result more likely to provide potentially meaningful information. Unfortunately, it ultimately offers little of use on the key questions:

We hypothesized that resveratrol would exert a chemopreventive effect against prostate cancer via regulation of sex steroid receptor and growth factor signaling pathways. In the current study, Transgenic Adenocarcinoma Mouse Prostate males were fed resveratrol (625 mg resveratrol per kg AIN-76A diet) or phytoestrogen-free, control diet (AIN-76A) starting at 5 weeks of age. Mechanisms of action and histopathology studies were conducted at 12 and 28 weeks of age, respectively. Resveratrol in the diet significantly reduced the incidence of poorly differentiated prostatic adenocarcinoma by 7.7-fold. In the dorsolateral prostate, resveratrol significantly inhibited cell proliferation, increased androgen receptor, estrogen receptor-beta, and insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor, and significantly decreased insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1 and phospho-extracellular regulating kinase 1 (phospho-ERK 1). ... Total resveratrol concentration in the blood serum of 12-week-old mice ... was 52 +/- 18 nM. The decrease in cell proliferation and the potent growth factor, IGF-1, the down-regulation of downstream effectors, phospho-ERKs 1 and 2 and the increase in the putative tumor suppressor, estrogen receptor-beta, provide a biochemical basis for resveratrol suppressing prostate cancer development.

Let's break this down. First, the key issue of sirtuin activation is not addressed -- and indeed, evidence supporting a specific alternative mechanism is provided: inhibition of IGF1 signaling, and (importantly) its modulation of sex hormone signaling via estrogen receptor beta, because of its phytoestrogenic effects. If replicable in normal, healthy humans, it's far from clear that that's a good idea: soy phytoestrogens are protective against prostate cancer in some animal models (including (2), which closely mirrors this study in design (TRAMP mice, initiated on genistein at age 5-6 weeks)), but while a reduction in prostate cancer incidence has been observed in soy consumers in some epidemiological studies, an American Heart Association Nutrition Committee Science Advisory for professionals concluded that

The efficacy and safety of soy isoflavones for preventing or treating cancer of the breast, endometrium, and prostate are not established; evidence from clinical trials is meager and cautionary with regard to a possible adverse effect.(3)

Indeed, a prospective epidemiological study in Japan found that Intakes of genistein, daidzein, miso soup, and soy food were not associated with total prostate cancer. However, these four items decreased the risk of localized prostate cancer. In contrast, positive associations were seen between isoflavones and advanced prostate cancer.(4)

This is especially important to note in this case, since (again) the animals began consuming a resveratrol-supplemented diet at age 5 weeks, as in the previous genistein report (2); this is at or only shortly after weaning (3-6 weeks), and before reproductive maturity (6-8 weeks). In this context, it is important to bear in mind the bimodal effects of soy phytoestrogens on breast cancer, depending on exposure times during the life cycle:

Two dietary polyphenols that have received attention from the health and research communities for their ability to protect against breast cancer are: genistein, a component of soy; and resveratrol ... We and others have shown that both genistein and resveratrol can protect against mammary cancer in rodents. The timing of exposure to genistein appears critical for its mammary protective effects. It has been reported that genistein early in life causes enhanced mammary gland differentiation, alterations in cell proliferation and apoptosis, and upregulation of tumor-suppressor genes. With resveratrol in the diet, changes in cell proliferation and apoptosis in terminal ductal structures of the mammary gland might help to explain its protective effects.(11)

Some studies have found that, with high soy intake, estrogen metabolism is favorably altered and menstrual cycle length increased; however, the impact of these changes on breast cancer risk is uncertain. Considerable enthusiasm remains for the possibility that soyfood intake contributes to the low breast cancer rate in Asia but increasingly it appears that childhood and/or adolescence is the critical period of exposure. This hypothesis, which is supported by both epidemiologic and animal data, is consistent with the mounting evidence that early life events greatly impact breast cancer risk ...

In addition to the potential protective effects, some data suggest that isoflavones could promote breast cancer. In vitro, genistein stimulates the growth of estrogen-sensitive mammary cancer cells, and in ovariectomized athymic mice, dietary genistein and genistin stimulate the growth of existing estrogen-sensitive mammary tumors. Consequently, in recent years, the estrogen-like effects of isoflavones have raised concerns that soyfoods are contraindicated for women at high risk of breast cancer and breast cancer patients with estrogen-sensitive tumors — approximately two-thirds of women with postmenopausal breast cancer are in this category. Numerous review articles and commentaries have been published on this topic.(11)

Soy phytoestrogens may also promote endometrial hyperplasia:

Three hundred seventy-six postmenopausal healthy women, all with intact uterus ... were distributed in two different groups using randomized criteria: group A (n = 179) patients received soy tablets (150 mg of isoflavones per day) for 5 years; group B (n = 197) patients received identical appearing placebo tablets for 5 years. ... Two hundred ninety-eight women completed the 5-year treatment. No cases of malignancy were detected during biopsy. Seventy percent of women undergoing treatment with soy phytoestrogens had an endometrium classified as atrophic or nonassessable versus 81% receiving placebo. The occurrence of endometrial hyperplasia was significantly higher in group A (3.37% vs. 0%). CONCLUSION(S): Long-term treatment (up to 5 years) with soy phytoestrogens was associated with an increased occurrence of endometrial hyperplasia. These findings call into question the long-term safety of phytoestrogens with regard to the endometrium.(13)

I submit, then, that the experimental design of this study (administration to sexually immature animals; lack of evaluation of SIRT1 activity; known interspecies differences between mice and (wo)man in resveratrol biotransformation) that this experiment provides very little confidence that resveratrol will treat or reduce the incidence of PCa, and indeed might even raise the specter which to evaluate the effects of resveratrol supplementation in mature male humans.

As to the broader issues (does resveratrol supplementation in humans increase SIRT1 activity in vivo? If so, does it thereby increase risk of cancer? If so, do the many other effects of resveratrol counterbalance such an effect?), this study provides no clear information.

Originally Posted by Ian Goddard
Of course the above published evidence does not confirm that resveratrol will prevent prostate cancer in the general population. But that's not the point at hand. What the published evidence does confirm is that there is now far more reason to believe that resveratrol may eventually prove to prevent and/or treat prostate cancer than to believe it may one day be shown to cause prostate cancer.


As you can see, I think that there is actually little or no evidence provided by these studies on the subject.


Originally Posted by Ian Goddard
And I haven't seen any coherent reason to believe it might cause prostate cancer.

"Cause," of course, is a tricky word when it comes to a multistage process like cancer (initiation, promotion, and progression, and the multiple internal mutations, environmental influences, and failures of internal and external defensive mechanisms that either inhibit or facilitate these processes). But I believe that I've presented sufficient data (and will present much more, soonish) on the narrower issue of SIRT1's role in cancer cell survival in vivo in humans to support the thesis that, if resveratrol supplementation does indeed increase SIRT1 activity, it might well increase the risk of cancerous and precancerous cells progressing to full-blown metastatic disease, rather than being

Or Read the whole topic over here

Edited by drmz, 26 January 2010 - 08:20 PM.


#43 Ringostarr

  • Guest
  • 87 posts
  • 8

Posted 27 January 2010 - 03:54 AM

At this point, Im not going for any inconclusive "chicken little" rhetoric about Resveratrol not being "anti-aging"! I took it regularly for a year. Unlike the other supplements in my regimen, I took it consistently. I recently stopped taking it for a few weeks concurrent with a break from exercise. Today I re-started, I took 1 cap of Nitro 250, 1 cap of MCT-Q, approx. 300 mgs of M98, the same amount of Toco-8, some Creatine, Whey and Glutamine mixed with a large glass of juice 30 minutes before an hour long weight workout. I definately felt it working during and after the session. It undoubtedly enhances stamina and endorphin release. Resveratrol does do something positive for me on a consistent level. I think these recent negative reports are veiled attacks on the Resveratrol industry. CBS news program "60 Minutes" is a more than credible source of accurate information, if they featured it, you can bet there is something to it. Dr. Sinclair and other professional experts have essentially bet their careers on it.

Pubmed is the best source, not CBS news or Dr Sinclair. There are no veiled attacks, just comments based on what information is out there. Think people are starting to grasp the idea that the red wine wonder pill thing was one big hype, or as michael called it " the Sysiphean cycle of the absolute latest supplement marketing hype scientific breakthrough "

Not sure why you would call resveratrol one big hype? What studies have you seen that show it is a hype? It has, in animal models, prevented many of the diseases of aging. In humans, the research is slow but promising.


This pretty much sums it up. No human data, alot of in vitro studies, some mouse studies (mosty fat mice), but nothing big pointing to the need to spend #360 dollar a year on a pill which, as the attached december 2009 paper from the University of Washington states, has little indication that supplementation with resveratrol has health consequences - either positive or negative- in people.

Thanks for the response. I base my opinion on resveratrol on the following: it did extend the lives of mice on a high fat diet; it did prevent many of the diseases of aging in mice on a healthy normal diet; much of the western world eats a high fat diet - my 'guess' is that resveratrol will help people with thier unhealthy eating habits; also, in a Sirtris study, resveratrol did increase insulin sensitivity and reduce glucose in humans (just as with mice). In a (very limited) Longevinix study, resveratrol did improve human eye health (just like with mice). In a British study, resveratrol did improve mental performance in humans. I know the jury is still out, but there is no need to be pessamistic about resveratrol. Even it it just helped diabetics with their sugar levels (as it clearly did), that would be pretty amazing.

Edit: Excessive quote trimmed.

Edited by niner, 27 January 2010 - 04:18 AM.


#44 niner

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

Posted 27 January 2010 - 04:26 AM

Pubmed is the best source, not CBS news or Dr Sinclair. There are no veiled attacks, just comments based on what information is out there. Think people are starting to grasp the idea that the red wine wonder pill thing was one big hype, or as michael called it " the Sysiphean cycle of the absolute latest supplement marketing hype scientific breakthrough "

Not sure why you would call resveratrol one big hype? What studies have you seen that show it is a hype? It has, in animal models, prevented many of the diseases of aging. In humans, the research is slow but promising.

This pretty much sums it up. No human data, alot of in vitro studies, some mouse studies (mosty fat mice), but nothing big pointing to the need to spend #360 dollar a year on a pill which, as the attached december 2009 paper from the University of Washington states, has little indication that supplementation with resveratrol has health consequences - either positive or negative- in people.

Most people don't "need" to spend a dollar a day on resveratrol, but the UW paper is just wrong if they think resveratrol doesn't have health consequences in humans. Mitochondrial biogenesis, anti-inflammatory actions, and blood glucose reduction are some of the biological activities that resveratrol has shown in humans. I guess the UW guys are of the "if it isn't published in the right journal, it doesn't exist" school of thought.

#45 2tender

  • Guest
  • 672 posts
  • 34
  • Location:USA

Posted 27 January 2010 - 04:32 AM

At this point, Im not going for any inconclusive "chicken little" rhetoric about Resveratrol not being "anti-aging"! I took it regularly for a year. Unlike the other supplements in my regimen, I took it consistently. I recently stopped taking it for a few weeks concurrent with a break from exercise. Today I re-started, I took 1 cap of Nitro 250, 1 cap of MCT-Q, approx. 300 mgs of M98, the same amount of Toco-8, some Creatine, Whey and Glutamine mixed with a large glass of juice 30 minutes before an hour long weight workout. I definately felt it working during and after the session. It undoubtedly enhances stamina and endorphin release. Resveratrol does do something positive for me on a consistent level. I think these recent negative reports are veiled attacks on the Resveratrol industry. CBS news program "60 Minutes" is a more than credible source of accurate information, if they featured it, you can bet there is something to it. Dr. Sinclair and other professional experts have essentially bet their careers on it.



Pubmed is the best source, not CBS news or Dr Sinclair. There are no veiled attacks, just comments based on what information is out there. Think people are starting to grasp the idea that the red wine wonder pill thing was one big hype, or as michael called it " the Sysiphean cycle of the absolute latest supplement marketing hype scientific breakthrough "


The myth of Sisyphus does not apply to research on anti-aging or life extension. All research, positive or negative, opens the door by increment.Yes, pubmed is a wider base of knowledge than "60 Minutes", but I think you missed my point. Resveratrol is a major product among weight-lifters right now. The reasons for this are multiple, and discounting or denying Resveratrols overt, positive effects on physiologic metabolism, particularly with male weight-lifters, is naive. Im convinced Resveratrol is beneficial for most people. This is my opinion, based on personal research and experience. Anecdotal? Yes. Grasping at straws? No!

#46 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 27 January 2010 - 07:53 AM

At this point, Im not going for any inconclusive "chicken little" rhetoric about Resveratrol not being "anti-aging"! I took it regularly for a year. Unlike the other supplements in my regimen, I took it consistently. I recently stopped taking it for a few weeks concurrent with a break from exercise. Today I re-started, I took 1 cap of Nitro 250, 1 cap of MCT-Q, approx. 300 mgs of M98, the same amount of Toco-8, some Creatine, Whey and Glutamine mixed with a large glass of juice 30 minutes before an hour long weight workout. I definately felt it working during and after the session. It undoubtedly enhances stamina and endorphin release. Resveratrol does do something positive for me on a consistent level. I think these recent negative reports are veiled attacks on the Resveratrol industry. CBS news program "60 Minutes" is a more than credible source of accurate information, if they featured it, you can bet there is something to it. Dr. Sinclair and other professional experts have essentially bet their careers on it.



Pubmed is the best source, not CBS news or Dr Sinclair. There are no veiled attacks, just comments based on what information is out there. Think people are starting to grasp the idea that the red wine wonder pill thing was one big hype, or as michael called it " the Sysiphean cycle of the absolute latest supplement marketing hype scientific breakthrough "


The myth of Sisyphus does not apply to research on anti-aging or life extension. All research, positive or negative, opens the door by increment.Yes, pubmed is a wider base of knowledge than "60 Minutes", but I think you missed my point. Resveratrol is a major product among weight-lifters right now. The reasons for this are multiple, and discounting or denying Resveratrols overt, positive effects on physiologic metabolism, particularly with male weight-lifters, is naive. Im convinced Resveratrol is beneficial for most people. This is my opinion, based on personal research and experience. Anecdotal? Yes. Grasping at straws? No!



I know resveratrol is searching for a new niche now that the anti-aging, wonderpill period is over.(mainly weight loss--> i believe the mice were fat and stayed fat during the studies?) I'm a regular visitor of several bodybuild forums, since about 13 years, and believe me, they are really NOT using resveratrol. Maybe some do, they use 30 products including some "high potency" Now foods alike resveratrol stuff. Mostly if you start about resveratrol they tell you to stay away with your spam. When you ask about resveratrol in an offline Bodybuidling Nutrition Shop they tell you : bullshit. But you seem to know, contrary to all studies that resveratrol is working when you start taking the following all together:

1.Nitro 250
2.Toco-8
3. Some creatine
4.Whey
5.Glutamine

You "definately felt it working" during and after the session? Ask yourself WHAT you felt working? Only the whey would lift my stamina and the creatine would do it's work for some strenght gain & the glutamine can give you a bit of an extra pump during the workout. Problem with anecdotes, be if from you, bodybuilders, woman trying to losoe weight is that they don't take one substance. Usually they change their behaviour as well or take other substances (like you). To pinpoint something that works in such a chaos is highly problematic. Reaching a causal conclusion is impossible. Even a double blind placebo controlled human study with subject taking all 6 the above substances would render inconclusive about which of the 6 worked. Even with 1 substance the anecdote has almost no value, placebo effects can make you push those extra 5%, who knows.

Another thing which ius very anoying is that you see the same happeing on most board, be it weight forums or bodybuilding forums....you see a first time poster with a anecdotal super story (an advertisment) and a link....most of those users never post the second topic or interfere in other discussions. They just seem to disappear.


to sum it up:

The Bottom Line
Epidemiologic studies can find associations between the consumption of foods or dietary supplements and various health outcomes. Animal experiments can demonstrate what can happen in the species tested. However, only human clinical trials can determine whether supplementation is useful for humans. Resveratrol has not been tested in clinical trials, and most clinical trials of other antioxidants have failed to demonstrate the benefits suggested by preliminary studies. Some substances—most notably beta-carotene—have even produced adverse effects. My advice is to ignore the hype surrounding resveratrol and eat a balanced diet that contains adequate amounts of fruits and vegetables.

Resveratrol: Don't Buy the Hype
Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions
http://www.quackwatc...esveratrol.html

Edited by drmz, 27 January 2010 - 08:23 AM.


#47 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,869 posts
  • 285
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 January 2010 - 02:32 PM

I know resveratrol is searching for a new niche now that the anti-aging, wonderpill period is over


So reservatrol is out? (amazingly none of our usual vocal suppliers commenting on this thread)

CR is out because it just doesnt extend human lifespan enough to be worth the loss of quality of life. ( A couple of years at best at the expense of feeling good and strong, ...uh yeah right, I am all over that).

The winds of change ....

Edited by mikeinnaples, 27 January 2010 - 02:33 PM.


#48 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,869 posts
  • 285
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 January 2010 - 02:44 PM

The Bottom Line
Epidemiologic studies can find associations between the consumption of foods or dietary supplements and various health outcomes. Animal experiments can demonstrate what can happen in the species tested. However, only human clinical trials can determine whether supplementation is useful for humans. Resveratrol has not been tested in clinical trials, and most clinical trials of other antioxidants have failed to demonstrate the benefits suggested by preliminary studies. Some substances—most notably beta-carotene—have even produced adverse effects. My advice is to ignore the hype surrounding resveratrol and eat a balanced diet that contains adequate amounts of fruits and vegetables.


Your statement above doesnt apply to resveratrol ....it applies to the entire forum about supplements. The vast majority of supplements are not fully understood, even some of the more 'known' ones ...lets take Vitamin E for example, hah.

There are so many factors involved even among humans that I have to laugh at some of the statements people make. An example would be Vitamin D, RDA adherance, etc. So much about vitamin D revolves around lifestyle, locality, age, weight, gender, time of year, and genetics that one cannot even hope to reccomend or comment on a dose someone should be taking without lab results taken into consideration 'with' those factors in mind. I recently saw one of our more vocal anti-unproven supplement posters tell someone that thier doseage of vitamin C was too high without even considering the weight of the indivual involved .....I mean really, (example) would 100mg of vitamin C have the same impact on someone that is female, weighs 115lbs, with a high dietary C intake when compared to a 210lb male with low/almost no dietary C intake?

I think the true bottom line is to exercise, eat health, and use common sense when supplementing. We are all hedging our bets.

#49 Ringostarr

  • Guest
  • 87 posts
  • 8

Posted 27 January 2010 - 03:14 PM

I know resveratrol is searching for a new niche now that the anti-aging, wonderpill period is over


So reservatrol is out? (amazingly none of our usual vocal suppliers commenting on this thread)

CR is out because it just doesnt extend human lifespan enough to be worth the loss of quality of life. ( A couple of years at best at the expense of feeling good and strong, ...uh yeah right, I am all over that).

The winds of change ....


What is drmz's definition of anti-aging? In my opinion if you fight the diseases of aging (which resveratrol has clearly done in mice) you are anti-aging. Also, no one, except irrational reactionaries, are saying resveratrol is "out" as a supplement that may help fight the disease of aging.

Edited by Ringostarr, 27 January 2010 - 03:15 PM.


#50 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,869 posts
  • 285
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 January 2010 - 03:50 PM

What is drmz's definition of anti-aging? In my opinion if you fight the diseases of aging (which resveratrol has clearly done in mice) you are anti-aging. Also, no one, except irrational reactionaries, are saying resveratrol is "out" as a supplement that may help fight the disease of aging.


I agree ... anti-aging and life extension are two different things.

#51 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 27 January 2010 - 04:04 PM

The Bottom Line
Epidemiologic studies can find associations between the consumption of foods or dietary supplements and various health outcomes. Animal experiments can demonstrate what can happen in the species tested. However, only human clinical trials can determine whether supplementation is useful for humans. Resveratrol has not been tested in clinical trials, and most clinical trials of other antioxidants have failed to demonstrate the benefits suggested by preliminary studies. Some substances—most notably beta-carotene—have even produced adverse effects. My advice is to ignore the hype surrounding resveratrol and eat a balanced diet that contains adequate amounts of fruits and vegetables.


Your statement above doesnt apply to resveratrol ....it applies to the entire forum about supplements. The vast majority of supplements are not fully understood, even some of the more 'known' ones ...lets take Vitamin E for example, hah.

There are so many factors involved even among humans that I have to laugh at some of the statements people make. An example would be Vitamin D, RDA adherance, etc. So much about vitamin D revolves around lifestyle, locality, age, weight, gender, time of year, and genetics that one cannot even hope to reccomend or comment on a dose someone should be taking without lab results taken into consideration 'with' those factors in mind. I recently saw one of our more vocal anti-unproven supplement posters tell someone that thier doseage of vitamin C was too high without even considering the weight of the indivual involved .....I mean really, (example) would 100mg of vitamin C have the same impact on someone that is female, weighs 115lbs, with a high dietary C intake when compared to a 210lb male with low/almost no dietary C intake?

I think the true bottom line is to exercise, eat health, and use common sense when supplementing. We are all hedging our bets.



I totally agree. it applies to most supplements, but most supplements have alot more research behind it. So there is some rationale in using or not using them. Resveratrol just doesn't have the kind and quantity of studies behind it that some other supplements do have. There is 1% science and the remaining 99% is a block hole filled with anecdotes and extrapolations from studies in which the authors constantly warn NOT to extrapolate the results. So yeah, everybody is hedging their bets, but i'm sure you can agree that there are safer and beter studied hedges then resveratrol. Seems like a pretty bad bet to me.

Maybe the gamble is worth it when some of the following studies are finished:

http://www.clinicalt...erm=resveratrol

I certainly hope at least some of them turn out to be positive.

Good, pretty recent overview of the current studies:
http://lpi.oregonsta...ls/resveratrol/

Edited by drmz, 27 January 2010 - 04:28 PM.


#52 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,944 posts
  • 1,616
  • Location:New York

Posted 27 January 2010 - 04:28 PM

I know resveratrol is searching for a new niche now that the anti-aging, wonderpill period is over


So reservatrol is out? (amazingly none of our usual vocal suppliers commenting on this thread)

CR is out because it just doesnt extend human lifespan enough to be worth the loss of quality of life. ( A couple of years at best at the expense of feeling good and strong, ...uh yeah right, I am all over that).

The winds of change ....


What is drmz's definition of anti-aging? In my opinion if you fight the diseases of aging (which resveratrol has clearly done in mice) you are anti-aging. Also, no one, except irrational reactionaries, are saying resveratrol is "out" as a supplement that may help fight the disease of aging.


Yes, but I think drmz is reacting to the hype that resveratrol is a magic bullet. It's clearly not that. To get the blood serum levels that have an effect in vitro in humans can only be donewith very large dose, if at all, and mice and canines get higher levels due to less efficient enzymes not breaking resveratrol down immediately, so blood levels can build.

Evidence toward lengthening life in mammals is ambiguous at best, it clearly does not prevent cancer in mice, at least not to a statistically significant degree. It may be effective against mammary cancer in canines, but not tested in humans. Id dose induce mitochondrial biogenesis in muscle tissue, at least in mice, at high doses. Measurements by a certified USCF coach in bicyclists, as recounted in this forum, have shown results consistent th mitochondrial biogenesis in humans. This at least has the potential for treating sarcopenia, a major "disease" of aging, butthere ar eas yet no clinical trials.

There is no evidence that resveratorl lowers blood sugar or improves insulin sensitivity in healthy humans, and in diabetics it was tested in conjunction with metformin. Though it improves lipid parameters in mice, this has not been observed in humans. Even though resveratrol treated mice on normal diet did not outlive ad libidum fed mice in Sinclair's trials, they were noted to be in better health, and more vigorous, in old age.

Gene activation assays indicate that resveratrol does activate genes that decline with aging, which qualifies as a hopeful sign. Resveratrol does lower nf-Kappa Beta, which would reduce inflammation. My own use confirms this for me: nothing I have been prescribed has been as effective at reducing arthritic pain and swelling. The improvements I've seen in stamina, attributable to probable mitochondrial biogenesis, make its use worthwhile for me. It's cost is about a dollar a day for me, my wife and my dog and my mother. YMMV.

Resveratrol was popularized as a putative caloric restriction mimetic. It may not be that, and even if it were, would not add more than a small percent to one's lifespan. Resveratrol is not the answer. But what was the question?

⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#53 markymark

  • Guest
  • 187 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 27 January 2010 - 06:41 PM

snip


Well, your analysis reminds of those funny black-and-white movies from the beginning of aviation, showing bizarre flying-apparatuses, which did not even lift up, or crashed after some secs... and today we fly supersonic...

OK, a very unscientific statement, but I can't help myself, to me it is to the point.

To me, the eat-a-balanced-diet-etc.-fruits-and-vegetables bioconservative prayer-weel is as regressively wrong, as an all to excessive uncritical supplement stacking might be on the other side....

Evolution has not stopped. And the human want to find out, as to whether popping supplement pills, using stem cells, extending telomeres in combination with these needless-to-say-basics of today's life extension habits, i. e. the eat-a-balanced diet-don't smoke-stuff, is evolution too. Mankind would have never evolved to this stage in terms of: discovering new continents, and achievements in science and architecture, if all would have been done on double-blind RCT-level-only.

I guess some out here are familiar with the proactionary principle coined by Max More and Natasha Vita-More some years ago...

IMHO it helps to consider this type of thinking, i. e. what is written about the proactionary principle vs. the precautional principle of traditional evidence based medicine by transhuman thinkers, in order to deal with the speculative element of using (yet unproven but promising) longevity supplements. Both principles have their own "authority". Freedom of choice is the basis and curiosity is the key.

MM


PS: Sorry for being kind of lofty (hope the word "lofty" is appropriate, I took it from [url="http://dict.leo.org)http://www.imminst.o...://dict.leo.org)

Edited by markymark, 27 January 2010 - 06:44 PM.


#54 eason

  • Guest
  • 126 posts
  • 0

Posted 27 January 2010 - 06:42 PM

Resveratrol: Don't Buy the Hype
Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions
http://www.quackwatc...esveratrol.html


You're seriously quoting Quackwatch?

Most of us here aren't delusioned about resveratrol. We know it's not going to prolong our lives. It won't free us from end-of-life cancer due to immune system degradation. Go warn some other forum about taking resveratrol. We've heard it all.

Edited by eason, 27 January 2010 - 06:48 PM.


#55 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 27 January 2010 - 06:48 PM

Resveratrol: Don't Buy the Hype
Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions
http://www.quackwatc...esveratrol.html


You're seriously quoting Quackwatch?

Most of us here aren't disillusioned about resveratrol. We know it's not going to prolong our lives. It won't free us from end-of-life cancer due to immune system degradation. Go warn some other forum about taking resveratrol. We've heard it all.


Yeah bad site but the "bottom line"was worth quoting.

Maybe a good & cheap source for the resveratrol believers --> http://www.youngagai...esveratrol.html

#56 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 27 January 2010 - 06:50 PM

snip


Well, your analysis reminds of those funny black-and-white movies from the beginning of aviation, showing bizarre flying-apparatuses, which did not even lift up, or crashed after some secs... and today we fly supersonic...

OK, a very unscientific statement, but I can't help myself, to me it is to the point.

To me, the eat-a-balanced-diet-etc.-fruits-and-vegetables bioconservative prayer-weel is as regressively wrong, as an all to excessive uncritical supplement stacking might be on the other side....

Evolution has not stopped. And the human want to find out, as to whether popping supplement pills, using stem cells, extending telomeres in combination with these needless-to-say-basics of today's life extension habits, i. e. the eat-a-balanced diet-don't smoke-stuff, is evolution too. Mankind would have never evolved to this stage in terms of: discovering new continents, and achievements in science and architecture, if all would have been done on double-blind RCT-level-only.

I guess some out here are familiar with the proactionary principle coined by Max More and Natasha Vita-More some years ago...

IMHO it helps to consider this type of thinking, i. e. what is written about the proactionary principle vs. the precautional principle of traditional evidence based medicine by transhuman thinkers, in order to deal with the speculative element of using (yet unproven but promising) longevity supplements. Both principles have their own "authority". Freedom of choice is the basis and curiosity is the key.

MM


PS: Sorry for being kind of lofty (hope the word "lofty" is appropriate, I took it from [url="http://dict.leo.org)http://www.imminst.o...://dict.leo.org)



Haha great..pro-active in what way? Popping the pill and pray that the "unknown 99%" of it actions turn out to be positive :-D I can imagine that at a point in time when becomes worth the risk and one can switch to proactionary principle, but there is no basis to do so at the moment.

Edited by drmz, 27 January 2010 - 06:56 PM.


#57 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 27 January 2010 - 07:02 PM

Sorry folks,

I have not been around, and may not be able to answer things for a while (yes I am busy as all heck lately...). But there is no doubt about resveratrol's effects on many folks that have been referred to us by oncologists for it's apparent nutritional and anti-oxidant value, as well as some other possible benefits.

Because of what I know, there is simply no way in hell I can stop and walk away from resveratrol, the simply fact is that my conscious would drive me insane if I even tried.

While longevity remains theoretical based on in vitro science for readers who are healthy, for others who have loved ones with issues... longevity is a daily struggle. Does resveratrol work for some of the issues that drmz has posted? If you seek that medical answer, then please email Dr. Charles Myers. If you have this issue (or have loved ones with this issue), as he is probably the person that could definitely answer many questions for your particular situation.

Medical advice from a professional with experience with resveratrol and other things, is always the best advice after all.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 27 January 2010 - 07:09 PM.


#58 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,365 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 27 January 2010 - 07:09 PM

The inklings of positive results from resveratrol supplementation are good enough for many people to buy and use it now. Additional clinical trials are in the works. The potential downsides are very few. This is how supplementation and other crude methods of extending lifespan and healthspan usually evolve. There are always early adopters. Resveratrol isn't ALL hype. Most people here are intelligent enough to weigh the evidence and make a decision for themselves.

#59 markymark

  • Guest
  • 187 posts
  • 18
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 27 January 2010 - 07:10 PM

No, not popping the pill and pray.... bzzzzzzzz

It is popping the pill and see/feel, what it is doing with you and others. Of couse before doing so you have read the literature risk-benefit etc... and have made a decision.... but you constantly adapt to new insights and findings, which theoretically can turn out to stopp the supplement inquestion and to realize,that you have erred in this case....

Edited by markymark, 27 January 2010 - 07:11 PM.


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

#60 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 27 January 2010 - 07:14 PM

I suppose the question to ask is:

What benefits are you looking for when taking resveratrol?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users