• 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

#61 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 27 January 2010 - 07:20 PM

Ah the resveratrol plunge protection team finally arrived :-D

"It is popping the pill and see/feel, what it is doing with you and others."

That's the main problem offcourse. Seeing and feeling is very subjective and prone to placebo effects. If you want to feel or see something, you'll see and feel something even after drinking a glass of water.
And i agree, resveratrol is not all hype, but it's hyped. Short term safetey studies are done but long term effects are unknown. I do not understand how people can translate those findings in "the potential dowsides are few"or the benefits outweigh the negatives. Well the dowsides with Selenium were also few for a long time (or Nac or alot of other supplements) which turned out to have negative effects.

Edited by drmz, 27 January 2010 - 07:30 PM.


#62 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 713
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 27 January 2010 - 07:31 PM

Hi drmz...

I agree, you need at least 4-6 weeks of supplementation before seriously considering benefits of a particular supplement. That is what I tell most folks that ask me about it.

I believe Micheal was "all in" for Selenium at one point, then back peddled when it exploded... (maybe it wasn't selenium?) The fact is that Micheal has been known to be wrong. (No offense, but you are human Mike, so I forgive you)

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 27 January 2010 - 07:36 PM.


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

#63 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 27 January 2010 - 07:43 PM

Hi drmz...

I agree, you need at least 4-6 weeks of supplementation before seriously considering benefits of a particular supplement. That is what I tell most folks that ask me about it.

I believe Micheal was "all in" for Selenium at one point, then back peddled when it exploded... (maybe it wasn't selenium?) The fact is that Micheal has been known to be wrong. (No offense, but you are human Mike, so I forgive you)

Cheers
A



Ahwell everybody can decide for themselves. And if they decide to buy resveratrol they better buy it at revgenetics. Just want to point out that there are alot of other,probably better and well studied options and that more research is needed. I'm really annoyed by all the false claim & add like posts (marketing people) which are infecting alot of good forums on the internet. Internet is a blessing and a curse when it comes to collecting information. There is alot of pressure on good and trustworthy information on the internet because stakes are high for some people.

#64 niner

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

Posted 27 January 2010 - 07:54 PM

I'm really annoyed by all the false claim & add like posts (marketing people) which are infecting alot of good forums on the internet. Internet is a blessing and a curse when it comes to collecting information. There is alot of pressure on good and trustworthy information on the internet because stakes are high for some people.

drmz, do you notice that those spam posts aren't seen here? At least not for long, because we have a whole team of people whose job it is to delete such garbage. This is a fairly sophisticated group, and we really don't need your chiding. There are hundreds of places on the internet where people are naive and maybe you could help them, but please give us a break. We are not deluded. Claims that resveratrol "does nothing" are almost as wrong as the claims that it will extend lives in healthy humans. Lets try to be accurate, ok?

#65 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,868 posts
  • 283
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 January 2010 - 08:57 PM

drmz, do you notice that those spam posts aren't seen here? At least not for long, because we have a whole team of people whose job it is to delete such garbage. This is a fairly sophisticated group, and we really don't need your chiding. There are hundreds of places on the internet where people are naive and maybe you could help them, but please give us a break. We are not deluded. Claims that resveratrol "does nothing" are almost as wrong as the claims that it will extend lives in healthy humans. Lets try to be accurate, ok?


Exactly this and very well put.

#66 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 27 January 2010 - 09:12 PM

I'm really annoyed by all the false claim & add like posts (marketing people) which are infecting alot of good forums on the internet. Internet is a blessing and a curse when it comes to collecting information. There is alot of pressure on good and trustworthy information on the internet because stakes are high for some people.

drmz, do you notice that those spam posts aren't seen here? At least not for long, because we have a whole team of people whose job it is to delete such garbage. This is a fairly sophisticated group, and we really don't need your chiding. There are hundreds of places on the internet where people are naive and maybe you could help them, but please give us a break. We are not deluded. Claims that resveratrol "does nothing" are almost as wrong as the claims that it will extend lives in healthy humans. Lets try to be accurate, ok?

Where exactly did i mentioned imminst ? And imminst, navigators, advisors & admins are certainly not deluled. That doesn't mean some people seem to be delude and naive. Don't feel attacked that easily. I have seen this kind of reaction before in the last 5 years.

Edited by drmz, 27 January 2010 - 09:20 PM.


#67 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,868 posts
  • 283
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 January 2010 - 10:01 PM

I'm really annoyed by all the false claim & add like posts (marketing people) which are infecting alot of good forums on the internet. Internet is a blessing and a curse when it comes to collecting information. There is alot of pressure on good and trustworthy information on the internet because stakes are high for some people.

drmz, do you notice that those spam posts aren't seen here? At least not for long, because we have a whole team of people whose job it is to delete such garbage. This is a fairly sophisticated group, and we really don't need your chiding. There are hundreds of places on the internet where people are naive and maybe you could help them, but please give us a break. We are not deluded. Claims that resveratrol "does nothing" are almost as wrong as the claims that it will extend lives in healthy humans. Lets try to be accurate, ok?

Where exactly did i mentioned imminst ? And imminst, navigators, advisors & admins are certainly not deluled. That doesn't mean some people seem to be delude and naive. Don't feel attacked that easily. I have seen this kind of reaction before in the last 5 years.


~That doesn't mean 'some' people seem to be delude and naive

...I agree with that, I also agree with Niner in that you don't have to make posts in such a fashion, at least in these forums, that 'most' in your audience are deluded and naive.

Of course, I could have been misinterpreting you much as you misinterpreted his post?
  • dislike x 1

#68 2tender

  • Guest
  • 671 posts
  • 34
  • Location:USA

Posted 28 January 2010 - 12:57 AM

Well, I dont think this thread is going to affect many Resveratrol takers use, but some others may be discouraged. Perhaps Im naive, but, I dont think guys like Dr. Sinclair and major drug companies are going to go out on a limb over a molecule that is "hype". Regarding use by weight lifters: a major company in this niche has a Resveratrol product that is one of their best sellers, and has been for years. This product would not be what it is without Resveratrol. Most people here have a regimen, the addition of Resveratrol to mine has been productive. I still think it is a valuble adjunct to anyones regimen, provided it doesnt interfere with any prescription drugs being taken. Resveratrol works for me.

#69 markymark

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

Posted 28 January 2010 - 09:28 AM

Ah the resveratrol plunge protection team finally arrived :-D

"It is popping the pill and see/feel, what it is doing with you and others."

That's the main problem offcourse. Seeing and feeling is very subjective and prone to placebo effects. If you want to feel or see something, you'll see and feel something even after drinking a glass of water.
And i agree, resveratrol is not all hype, but it's hyped. Short term safetey studies are done but long term effects are unknown. I do not understand how people can translate those findings in "the potential dowsides are few"or the benefits outweigh the negatives. Well the dowsides with Selenium were also few for a long time (or Nac or alot of other supplements) which turned out to have negative effects.



Hya drmz,

funny, that you ingnored the second part of my post ...

Here is my post again: "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...."

So, what does the sentence I wrote mean to you? "before doing so you have read the literature risk-benefit etc.. "?

Obviously something makes you unable to understand the difference between a calculated risk (in terms of resveratrol more likely a benefit) and simple foolhardiness.

#70 hmm

  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • 2

Posted 29 January 2010 - 01:05 AM

Drmz,

I really do think it would be helpful if you could somehow clarify what point or points you are trying to make. The best I can make out so far is that "humans should not take resveratrol until human trials prove its worthiness", which I guess would dictate that humans can never take resveratrol.

Sometimes I get the feeling that you are crusading to make sure that impressionable folks don't ruin their health by ingesting a harmful supplement (rsv) that has been presented as a good supplement. But you are not presenting any studies to show rsv is really harmful, and I was under the impression that you profess to not believe anything that hasn't been proven by a double-blind study. If you violate your own rule in this regard, and presume rsv is harmful, then you may be preventing people from improving their health by falsely convincing them that rsv is not good for them.

Have you really thought out what exactly it is that you want to accomplish in your posts to this thread, or are you kind of just throwing out ideas and bouncing them off people here to try to get them all sorted out within your own evaluation system?

#71 2tender

  • Guest
  • 671 posts
  • 34
  • Location:USA

Posted 29 January 2010 - 02:52 AM

I dont think he can reply. I want readers to know that Resveratrol has been around for quite awhile, sure, it has been hyped and a lot of poor product has been produced, purchased and discarded. If I thought Resveratrol was harmful, I wouldnt be taking it. All the research is, for the most part, positive. My own experience with it has been positive. If you have been taking it for some time, and it is compatible with your system, produces positive results in terms of energy, stamina, etc. I would continue taking it. At this point there is no proof that it is harmful, when taken in a sensible way.

#72 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 713
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 29 January 2010 - 09:58 PM

This is going to continue to be up in the air, as I believe GSK will have a rebuttal of some sort, or maybe none at all until their new are drugs are refined and tested on humans.

Lets see how this is playing out:
First, we know that Pfizer is ranked the number 1 Pharma in the world, GSK is ranked as the number 2 Pharma in the world...

As a friend has recently told me, this really appears to be more of a setup for Pfizer's marketing team, as Pfizer is working on their own 'drugs' that deal with the same issues that Resveratrol is supposed to deal with. Remember, the FDA does not consider longevity or aging as a something to be cured so the battle will be about the benefits regarding diseases that the FDA recognizes.

Personally I believe this is aimed at market share in a continuous battle between the behomths of the pharma industry. Then again, if I were cynical... I would say that this may start a misinformation campaign about res. Which will be good for both pharmas in the industry, as it will have folks walk away from a natural solution to pay for the more expensive 'drugs' that are only available through one of the big Pharmas...

So to sum up where my train of thought is headed:
I don't think GSK really cares about this study from Pfizer, as it could only benefit them in the eyes of consumers who will believe studies paid for and generated by big pharmas, over the other unbiased university studies which seem to provide a lot of evidence for the possible benefits of resveratrol regardless of SIRT1 activation ...

Strange bedfellows, these 2 big pharmas? Maybe.

But, alas... I am no cynic, (well at least not most of the time).

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 29 January 2010 - 10:03 PM.


#73 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 30 January 2010 - 08:43 AM

This is going to continue to be up in the air, as I believe GSK will have a rebuttal of some sort, or maybe none at all until their new are drugs are refined and tested on humans.

Lets see how this is playing out:
First, we know that Pfizer is ranked the number 1 Pharma in the world, GSK is ranked as the number 2 Pharma in the world...

As a friend has recently told me, this really appears to be more of a setup for Pfizer's marketing team, as Pfizer is working on their own 'drugs' that deal with the same issues that Resveratrol is supposed to deal with. Remember, the FDA does not consider longevity or aging as a something to be cured so the battle will be about the benefits regarding diseases that the FDA recognizes.

Personally I believe this is aimed at market share in a continuous battle between the behomths of the pharma industry. Then again, if I were cynical... I would say that this may start a misinformation campaign about res. Which will be good for both pharmas in the industry, as it will have folks walk away from a natural solution to pay for the more expensive 'drugs' that are only available through one of the big Pharmas...

So to sum up where my train of thought is headed:
I don't think GSK really cares about this study from Pfizer, as it could only benefit them in the eyes of consumers who will believe studies paid for and generated by big pharmas, over the other unbiased university studies which seem to provide a lot of evidence for the possible benefits of resveratrol regardless of SIRT1 activation ...

Strange bedfellows, these 2 big pharmas? Maybe.

But, alas... I am no cynic, (well at least not most of the time).

Cheers
A


Now that's a convenient line of thought. If i were you i would think exactly the same. It's a battle Bigh Pharma vs Mother Nature :-D

Edited by drmz, 30 January 2010 - 08:44 AM.


#74 tunt01

  • Guest, Advisor
  • 2,301 posts
  • 409
  • Location:NW

Posted 30 January 2010 - 02:20 PM

bunch of stuff



http://www.corante.com/pipeline/

if you read what this guy has posted and several comments (he has two postings on the pfizer/sirtris situation), it looks like GSK management did blow it. someone from GSK posted and said they did the due diligence and warned GSK management that resveratrol and the sirtris compounds effect on sirtuins was merely an artifact of the assay.

Sinclair's response seemed pretty pathetic:

A possible explanation for the discrepancy, says Sinclair, is that Ahn and her colleagues did not provide information on the characterization of the compounds, which they synthesized themselves. So there is no way of knowing how pure they were or whether they're the same as those made by Sirtris. "The fact that mice died indicates that there may be an issue with purity,"


that is pretty much a joke... to assume the pfizer people are incapable of creating a pure substance and properly running the lab work.

#75 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,938 posts
  • 1,612
  • Location:New York

Posted 30 January 2010 - 06:39 PM

bunch of stuff



http://www.corante.com/pipeline/

if you read what this guy has posted and several comments (he has two postings on the pfizer/sirtris situation), it looks like GSK management did blow it. someone from GSK posted and said they did the due diligence and warned GSK management that resveratrol and the sirtris compounds effect on sirtuins was merely an artifact of the assay.

Sinclair's response seemed pretty pathetic:

A possible explanation for the discrepancy, says Sinclair, is that Ahn and her colleagues did not provide information on the characterization of the compounds, which they synthesized themselves. So there is no way of knowing how pure they were or whether they're the same as those made by Sirtris. "The fact that mice died indicates that there may be an issue with purity,"


that is pretty much a joke... to assume the pfizer people are incapable of creating a pure substance and properly running the lab work.


It's not unusual for different labs to get different results with ostensibly the same procedures.

#76 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 713
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 01 February 2010 - 01:05 AM

Maxwatt is correct...

However, for many that answer just won't do. So let's play a little with this...

1- Lets consider the Sirtris study suspect, let's imagine simply that they wanted to convince some large pharma to buy them out. (which is not what I believe, but many might.)

Now...
2- Let's also consider the Pfizer study suspect, because it would greatly benefit them if resveratrol simply did nothing.


So after these two studies are thrown in the trash, what studies do we have left? Are the studies that are left to consider mostly positive or negative? (Back in 2008, I tried to compile a few studies here and quickly gave up as the amount of studies was simply enormous... http://knol.google.c...tudies-2-of-3#)

Do you see why this single study still does not register as an issue with the majority of folks?

Resveratrol remains an incredibly powerful molecule with an enormous amount of benefits, even if we tossed both the Sirtris and Pfizer studies out. I put out monthly newsletters, and point out many positive studies that continue to come in from different scientists and researchers. Why would anyone with a decent head on their shoulders, attempt to discount all these positive studies that continue to come in from around the globe?

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 01 February 2010 - 01:22 AM.


#77 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 713
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 01 February 2010 - 01:58 AM

http://www.corante.com/pipeline/



Prophets, that link you provided has some enormously hilarious posts... thanks for that.
http://pipeline.cora...re.php#comments

It made my night.

#78 drmz

  • Guest
  • 574 posts
  • 10
  • Location:netherlands

Posted 04 February 2010 - 06:09 PM

Inside the cancer-pill hype machine
Funny wired article.

http://www.wired.co....e.aspx?page=all

#79 tunt01

  • Guest, Advisor
  • 2,301 posts
  • 409
  • Location:NW

Posted 04 February 2010 - 07:04 PM

http://www.corante.com/pipeline/



Prophets, that link you provided has some enormously hilarious posts... thanks for that.
http://pipeline.cora...re.php#comments

It made my night.



i hope you read the first one, also. it includes a posting in the comment section from someone @ GSK (or someone with knowledge of those @ GSK) who was involved in the Sirtris due diligence.

http://pipeline.cora...less_really.php

see comment #14 - poster alig

Edited by prophets, 04 February 2010 - 07:05 PM.


#80 eason

  • Guest
  • 126 posts
  • 0

Posted 04 February 2010 - 08:38 PM

Inside the cancer-pill hype machine
Funny wired article.

http://www.wired.co....e.aspx?page=all



After reading this article, I still spend ~$4/month on resveratrol and will continue to do so.

Quote:

Today, Spanish-born de Cabo is conducting resveratrol trials with rhesus monkeys, the results of which are due to be published "very soon". From his government laboratory in Baltimore he tells Wired that, so far, the latest trials -- in that well worn, scientist-beloved phrase -- "looks promising". However, when I ask whether evidence exists from published data to support claims that resveratrol can extend human life and inhibit diseases, including certain cancers and cardiovascular disease, he says it doesn't.


This is the study that is said by Sinclair to contain further evidence for the cardiovascular and anti-diabetic benefits of resveratrol... But will it support claims that resveratrol increases human lifespan or inhibits disease? Of course not.

Edited by eason, 04 February 2010 - 08:39 PM.


#81 niner

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

Posted 04 February 2010 - 09:29 PM

i hope you read the first one, also. it includes a posting in the comment section from someone @ GSK (or someone with knowledge of those @ GSK) who was involved in the Sirtris due diligence.

http://pipeline.cora...less_really.php

see comment #14 - poster alig

alig's comment sounds familiar:

The Scientists at GSK told management the compounds were shit during due diligence. GSK's management (Moncef Slaoui & Patrick Vallance) ignored their internal scientists and bought the company anyway (for too much money even if the compounds were real). This is part of Moncef's overall strategy of trusting external scientists more than internal ones (just look where they are investing). The blame lies squarely at Moncef's feet for this debacle.

When I was in the pharmaceutical industry, I saw this all the time. Being from the outside was like an instant 50 IQ point boost in the eyes of management. Many errors were made this way, but none costing $720M...

#82 Cameron

  • Guest
  • 167 posts
  • 22

Posted 15 February 2010 - 02:46 AM

Negative studies regarding resveratrol are bound to emerge, the more powerful and broad the natural compound, the more big pharma has to fear. Any negative info has to be seen in this light, and we've to check where it comes from and how connected the individuals are to big pharma(for example was it a ghostwritten article?).

#83 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,168 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 01 November 2011 - 07:08 PM

There are soooooooo many resveratrol threads, I didn't know where to put this one. This thread seemed to have some good discussion so here is goes.

File this one in the positive HUMAN studies section: Resveratrol has several significant benefits for obese humans.

Something to consider, just to blunt some enthusiasm, obese people quite often have very crappy diets. They are probably lacking many key nutrients. It might not take too much diet/supplement alteration to see some benefits. The same benefits could be achieved by a slight increase in exercise, a modest reduction in calories, or more nutritious food. I would have to delve further into the paper to find out the typical diet and lifestyle of the obese people in the study before claiming resveratrol a miracle supplement. However, this natural molecule now has several years of study behind it and still no MAJOR downsides. I have taken small amounts off-n-on for the last couple years, but am considering making it a more regular supplement in my minimal regimen.
  • like x 4

#84 ianlib

  • Guest
  • 16 posts
  • 3
  • Location:toronto

Posted 02 November 2011 - 01:43 PM

This article has made many of the papers today including the Guardian and Washington Post. However, if you go to Medscape , you can get the professional responses which have been positive and a comment from Sinclair who claims this backs up his mouse studies. http://www.medscape....warticle/752703 . This is just the beginning of the human studies and this pretty well wipes out the previous controversy since they found similar anti ageing properties linked to calorie restriction.
  • like x 1

#85 malbecman

  • Guest
  • 728 posts
  • 151
  • Location:Sunny CA

Posted 02 November 2011 - 05:54 PM

Thanks, Mind, that is a good one! Pretty nice positive effects and at only 150mg/day.........

#86 niner

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

Posted 02 November 2011 - 08:28 PM

Yeah, thanks for that, Mind. So maybe resveratrol has antiaging properties after all, at least if you're an obese male. They even make it sound like a CR mimetic, but again, you might need to be obese to see it. Since I went to the trouble to register at medscape to see the link that ianlib posted above, I thought I'd copy a few details, since it was more complete than the earlier report.

Researchers measured a series of metabolic biomarkers each week during each of these trials. They found the following differences in the men after 30 days of resveratrol supplementation compared with after placebo supplementation:

  • Both reseveratrol and dihydroresveratrol total (the sum of conjugated and unconjugated resveratrol) were in the participants' plasma. This confirmed that the men were metabolizing resveratrol.
  • Mean systolic blood pressure was 124.7 (±3.1) with resveratrol vs 130.5 (±2.7) with the placebo, which is a statistically significant difference (P = .006). Diastolic blood pressure remained statistically the same. Mean arterial pressure was significantly lower (94.9 vs 97.9; P = .02).
  • There were no effects on body mass (99.9 ± 3.9 kg vs 99.6 ± 2.5 kg; P = .43).
  • After consuming a liquid test meal, the subjects reached peak glucose and insulin responses in 30 minutes when they were taking the placebo, and 60 minutes when they were taking resveratrol.
  • Leptin level and leukoytes were significantly lower in participants taking resveratrol compared with those taking placebo (P = .04 and P = .03, respectively).
  • Markers of systemic inflammation, including interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha, were lower for the resveratrol group, but only tumor necrosis factor alpha was statistically significant (P = .09 and P = .04, respectively).
  • Plasma glucose and insulin concentrations were lower in the resveratrol group (P = .05 and P = .04, respectively), suggesting an improved insulin sensitivity.
  • Plasma triglyceride concentrations were significantly lower in the resveratrol group compared with placebo (P = .03).
  • There were no significant differences in plasma nonsterified fatty acids (P = .59).
  • Respiratory quotient values over the course of 24 hours tended to be higher after resveratrol, (P = .09) mostly because of higher values during the day (P = .001, as opposed to the nighttime difference between resveratrol and placebo, which was P = .18).
  • There were no effects on thermogenesis or the physical activity index.
  • Hepatic lipid accumulation was lower.
  • Sleeping metabolic rate was slower in the resveratrol group (P = .007), even though the participants' 24-hour energy expenditure was similar in both groups (P = .64).
  • A microarray analysis on vastus lateralis muscle biopsies showed 469 genes to be differentially expressed, of which 219 were increased and 250 were decreased. Several gene sets related to mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation were upregulated, whereas pathways linked to inflammation were downregulated.
  • Basal and postprandial energy expenditure were reduced in the resveratrol group, which is a finding opposite to what studies have found in mice, but is consistent with endurance training and calorie restriction in people.
The researchers noted that the dosage they used was about 200-fold lower than the dosage used in mouse studies. The duration of the trial was also much shorter than the 4 to 6 months seen in the animal studies. However, they said the plasma concentration in this trial was about the same as in the mouse trials.
The supplement did not appear to cause any adverse reactions. The researchers looked at clinical chemistry, hematology and coagulation, and electrocardiograms, but found nothing out of the ordinary.


The study was funded by the Top Institute Food and Nutrition, as well as grants from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research to 2 of the authors and laboratory support from the European Research Council, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Velux Foundation and École Polytechnique FÉdÉrale de Lausanne. One of the researchers in this study is employed by DSM Nutritional Products, which makes resveratrol supplements and supplied the supplements, along with placebo capsules, for the study. Dr. Sinclair disclosed that he is a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and OvaScience.

Cell Metabol. 2011;14:612-622. Here's the Cell Met paper, Free Full text!

Other things- dihydroresveratrol is a really weird metabolite for them to be looking at. I've never heard of anyone looking at it, but they certainly see a lot of it. ResVida is DSM's branded product, which they are trying to develop a market in. That doesn't mean the study is fraudulent, but there's a conflict of interest, which the authors do report. The "Top Institute Food and Nutrition", the main funder, is an Industry/Academia/Government partnership in the Netherlands. DSM is one of its industrial partners. So that's another conflict, a bit less apparent.
  • like x 1

#87 bixbyte

  • Guest
  • 552 posts
  • 45
  • Location:End of the Galaxy
  • NO

Posted 02 November 2011 - 09:21 PM

Yes Yes and Yes nice results.
I Guess I have a 5 year head start over all of you? :)
And my Wife is the only Female supplementing on Resveratrol for 5 years? ;)

We are both on 1,500 milligrams per day.
Great Study Results!
___________________________________________________________________


Researchers measured a series of metabolic biomarkers each week during each of these trials. They found the following differences in the men after 30 days of resveratrol supplementation compared with after placebo supplementation:

  • Both reseveratrol and dihydroresveratrol total (the sum of conjugated and unconjugated resveratrol) were in the participants' plasma. This confirmed that the men were metabolizing resveratrol.
  • Mean systolic blood pressure was 124.7 (±3.1) with resveratrol vs 130.5 (±2.7) with the placebo, which is a statistically significant difference (P = .006). Diastolic blood pressure remained statistically the same. Mean arterial pressure was significantly lower (94.9 vs 97.9; P = .02).
  • There were no effects on body mass (99.9 ± 3.9 kg vs 99.6 ± 2.5 kg; P = .43).
  • After consuming a liquid test meal, the subjects reached peak glucose and insulin responses in 30 minutes when they were taking the placebo, and 60 minutes when they were taking resveratrol.
  • Leptin level and leukoytes were significantly lower in participants taking resveratrol compared with those taking placebo (P = .04 and P = .03, respectively).
  • Markers of systemic inflammation, including interleukin 6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha, were lower for the resveratrol group, but only tumor necrosis factor alpha was statistically significant (P = .09 and P = .04, respectively).
  • Plasma glucose and insulin concentrations were lower in the resveratrol group (P = .05 and P = .04, respectively), suggesting an improved insulin sensitivity.
  • Plasma triglyceride concentrations were significantly lower in the resveratrol group compared with placebo (P = .03).
  • There were no significant differences in plasma nonsterified fatty acids (P = .59).
  • Respiratory quotient values over the course of 24 hours tended to be higher after resveratrol, (P = .09) mostly because of higher values during the day (P = .001, as opposed to the nighttime difference between resveratrol and placebo, which was P = .18).
  • There were no effects on thermogenesis or the physical activity index.
  • Hepatic lipid accumulation was lower.
  • Sleeping metabolic rate was slower in the resveratrol group (P = .007), even though the participants' 24-hour energy expenditure was similar in both groups (P = .64).
  • A microarray analysis on vastus lateralis muscle biopsies showed 469 genes to be differentially expressed, of which 219 were increased and 250 were decreased. Several gene sets related to mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation were upregulated, whereas pathways linked to inflammation were downregulated.
  • Basal and postprandial energy expenditure were reduced in the resveratrol group, which is a finding opposite to what studies have found in mice, but is consistent with endurance training and calorie restriction in people.
The researchers noted that the dosage they used was about 200-fold lower than the dosage used in mouse studies. The duration of the trial was also much shorter than the 4 to 6 months seen in the animal studies. However, they said the plasma concentration in this trial was about the same as in the mouse trials.
The supplement did not appear to cause any adverse reactions. The researchers looked at clinical chemistry, hematology and coagulation, and electrocardiograms, but found nothing out of the ordinary.


The study was funded by the Top Institute Food and Nutrition, as well as grants from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research to 2 of the authors and laboratory support from the European Research Council, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Velux Foundation and École Polytechnique FÉdÉrale de Lausanne. One of the researchers in this study is employed by DSM Nutritional Products, which makes resveratrol supplements and supplied the supplements, along with placebo capsules, for the study.
Dr. Sinclair disclosed that he is a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline and OvaScience.

Cell Metabol. 2011;14:612-622. Here's the Cell Met paper, Free Full text!

Other things- dihydroresveratrol is a really weird metabolite for them to be looking at. I've never heard of anyone looking at it, but they certainly see a lot of it. ResVida is DSM's branded product, which they are trying to develop a market in. That doesn't mean the study is fraudulent, but there's a conflict of interest, which the authors do report. The "Top Institute Food and Nutrition", the main funder, is an Industry/Academia/Government partnership in the Netherlands. DSM is one of its industrial partners. So that's another conflict, a bit less apparent.



#88 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 713
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 03 November 2011 - 02:49 AM

ResVida is DSM's branded product, which they are trying to develop a market in. That doesn't mean the study is fraudulent, but there's a conflict of interest, which the authors do report. The "Top Institute Food and Nutrition", the main funder, is an Industry/Academia/Government partnership in the Netherlands. DSM is one of its industrial partners. So that's another conflict, a bit less apparent.



DSM, yes... I have spoken to them. They couldn't micronize the product, when I asked them about it. I had to turn them away, because of the market prices of regular non-micronized resveratrol where simply much better when you compared it to their synthetic non-micronized resveratrol product.

You would think synthetics would be much cheaper than natural products, in this case... I was WAY wrong about that with DSM's synthetic Res.

Last I heard, the current version they use is not even micronized to boot.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 03 November 2011 - 02:55 AM.


#89 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,868 posts
  • 283
  • Location:Florida

Posted 03 November 2011 - 12:07 PM

Yeah, thanks for that, Mind. So maybe resveratrol has antiaging properties after all, at least if you're an obese male. They even make it sound like a CR mimetic, but again, you might need to be obese to see it.


Though I don't feel it is an accurate reflection of our forum members, there is a rather large portion of the male population in the United States that can be considered obese.

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

#90 scorpe

  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • 0

Posted 03 November 2011 - 10:46 PM

Found today in the dutch news:

http://www.cell.com/...55041311100386X

Edited by scorpe, 03 November 2011 - 10:47 PM.


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



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users