161 replies to this topic

[opales]

On resveratrol: Christ, are people still taking this?? It has now been demonstrated that Resveratrol does not activate sirtuins -- the effect is a laboratory artifact resulting from the fact that the molecular "tag" ("Fluor de Lys") that Sinclair's group has been using to detect the activation (deacetylation) of various enzymatic targets by sirtuins actually decreases the binding affinity of sirtuins to their target protein.

Jason Wood, co-author of Sinclair apparently, states on sci.life-extension that the interpretations regarding the Fluor de Lys incident were completely exaggerated:

http://groups.google...3f639b250a431b5

Well, i am a little late to the party, but a few comments on this
thread (google won't let me post a reply to the original):
"Fundamental laboratory error" is an overstatement, and claims that the
whole thing was made up are simply false. Nor is the work "faulty."
The test used was a well characterized assay for deacetylase activity,
and the interpretation of the results was consistent with the data
generated. In short, here's the scoop--the fluorescent moiety attached
to the peptide turned out to decrease the binding affinity of the
peptide for SIRT1. Resveratrol binds SIRT1 and then increases the
affinity for this lower-affinity substrate. This increase is not seen
in a fluorescent-less peptide, which binds much tighter. We have also
observed that the results of these assays can vary depending on the
concentration of substrate and NAD that are used. If the starting
concentration is too high, even with the fluorescent peptide, the
effect goes away. Resveratrol binding to SIRT1 is gaining acceptance in
the scientific literature. I would point you to an excellent recent
paper in JBC from John Denu's lab (available free on pubmed) examining
the biochemistry in more detail. They find similarly that activation in
the assay depends on the fluorescent moiety, but note they agree that
resveratrol _can_ bind SIRT1 and change substrate affinity. The real
question is how tight are the actual proteins binding? (under
investigation) If in vivo targets bind with a Kd more akin to the
labelled peptide, rather than the unlabelled, one could easily imagine
how the effect might be physiologically relevant.
As far as the lack of reproducibility of in vivo yeast data--that is
puzzling I agree, especially since the authors of the study are among
the world's leaders in performing yeast lifespans. I will only say at
least one other lab has repeated the yeast results, several labs have
repeated the worm results (with sir2 dependence), and flies have been
confirmed in at least two labs (with sir2 dependence).
So yes, it is not as straight forward as we had hoped. No, we didn't
make the whole thing up, and the sky is not falling.
Armchair scientists should be careful in drawing conclusions and
flinging accusations when they do not have first hand knowledge of
what's going on.
Sincerely,
Jason Wood

Note that the refence to "recent paper in JBC from John Denu's lab" is obviously Michael's [2]. He continues:

my vitriol was directed primarily at others who were harsher than you.
You raise valid questions. I agree with you that resveratrol seems to
have a lot of great properties, and a good many of the effects are
likely to have little to do with sirtuins.
With regard to conjugates--
you are entirely correct. These should be researched in the in vitro
assays. I have heard rumors that this is currently being done. One
thing to remember is the angle that we approached this problem from. We
are not pharmacologists, and are primarily interested in answering
questions about the basic biology of sirtuins and how they relate to
aging in our simple model systems from a genetic and biochemical
direction. Flies, worms, and yeast do not have livers. It seemed to
make sense to begin in vivo testing with the compound that came out of
the screen, which was the unconjugated resveratrol. Science in the lab
frequently does not develop in quite the orderly way media reports or
even finished published papers project. That having been said, results
using the conjugates you mention would certainly be exciting from the
point of view of (and perhaps more relevant to) human biology, which is
what we all ultimately care about. I, with you, look forward to seeing
more data.

As I said in the another thread, this starts to get pretty technical for me (I actually read [2] for like an hour), I'll wait until this is settled and enjoy my glass of red wine in the meantime.

[DukeNukem]

Funk, all of MR's points relate to resveratrol's potential effect of life span extension in the same way that CR extends life. Frankly, this is not a key reason to take resveratrol, and if this turns out to be a benefit of resveratrol, than all the better. But clearly, resveratrol is so burdened with other positive benefits it is STILL one of the top supplements available -- a near miracle supplement from a HEALTH standpoint. You'd be a fool not to take it. The French, despite their poor eating habits (including high alcohol consumption), have clearly benefited from resveratrol. And if MR is April Smith's boyfriend (I think this is the same person), then even she writes about drinking red wine nearly daily to get resveratol.

MR's health sense is suspect, too, by his consumption of sucralose (Splenda), an artificial sweetener with a cloud of health issues surrounding it. Why would anyone concerned about extending their life risk using this substance. Very odd. And not too bright.

So, anyone following his advice and not using resveratrol will only have regrets down the road, as this supplement will promote better health. The key idea behind supplements is to stay healthy and extend life through good health. We all know that supplements are not the solution to life extension beyond 90 or 100 years old. But, if most of us can make it that far at least, then we have a good chance of going all the way thanks to coming advancements.

[trh001]

The body of literature on resveratrol is diverse across experimental systems, across laboratories, and importantly, across time. I've done literature searches and haven't seen any qualification of resveratrol's body of research in the primary literature, but perhaps all this is pending? A body of research deemed wholly worthless ("On resveratrol: Christ, are people still taking this??") would have been qualified in Science, or Nature. I confess to not hanging on the edge of my seat for Time or Newsweek to issue a ruling.

Resveratrol was not exclusively investigated by Sinclair and it's clearly been investigated in systems more complex than yeast gene expression. More to the point, in vivo vertebrate life-span extension study seem to have little to do with speculation on one laboratory and it's lack of adequate controls in a given experiment or experimental system…unless we a situation analogous to the "Korean cloning scandal", with multiple labs faking results (grin)?

Sooooo, let's not lose all perspective.

Besides, the recent vertebrate study (fish) wasn't an in vitro assay on gene expression, and life-span extension isn't a surrogate end point.

[syr_]

MR's health sense is suspect, too, by his consumption of sucralose (Splenda), an artificial sweetener with a cloud of health issues surrounding it.  Why would anyone concerned about extending their life risk using this substance.  Very odd.  And not too bright.

Besides the witch hunt that we all know, can you show any real study on sucralose showing ANY negative effect?
For what I know the risks are like consuming any sugar molecule that has been manipuladed to alter its composition to exacerbate the sweetness.
The "Better safe than Sorry" approach can be exaggerated sometimes...

[ajnast4r]

Besides the witch hunt that we all know, can you show any real study on sucralose showing ANY negative effect?
For what I know the risks are like consuming any sugar molecule that has been manipuladed to alter its composition to exacerbate the sweetness.
The "Better safe than Sorry" approach can be exaggerated sometimes...

can you show me and real study on the long term consumption of sucralose showings its SAFE? the burden of proof is on those who claim it is NOT dangerous.

they said and say the same BS about saccarin and aspartame, both of which are now PROVEN to have a negative impact on health... swore up and down for years that it was safe, and now look... thousands of people who have probably drastically decreased their life span because "The "Better safe than Sorry" approach can be exaggerated sometimes"

[focus]

"can you show me and real study on the long term consumption of sucralose showings its SAFE? the burden of proof is on those who claim it is NOT dangerous."

We can say this about so many promising substances, resveratrol being one of them, regular ALA another. Once touted as great, now under suspicion. Is it perhaps the advancements in technology and testing techniques, or just the long term studies finally coming to conclusions? I always like to see real evidence, or links to the same, and MR always seems to have a plethora of these Even CR, which seems to work fine in mice, has no conclusive studies with humans. The leading edge of any discipline always has its risks and rewards.

[ajnast4r]

well the difference between the proposed greatness of something like resveratrol for enhancing life/span, and something like sucralose which is simply a chemical used to satiate the addiction to sweets... is drastically different and cant be lumped into the same catagory.

[opales]

can you show me and real study on the long term consumption of sucralose showings its SAFE? the burden of proof is on those who claim it is NOT dangerous.

Well there is more evidence of splenda being safer than stevia yet you or Duke have no problems taking that. Countries banning stevia as sweetener include EU, US, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore ie. the entire industrialized world except for Japan. Here's some reads on this.

http://europa.eu.int...cf/out34_en.pdf
http://www.legco.gov...y/0102fs04e.pdf

And let's not get carried away with aspartame and saccarin. Even the new aspartame rat cancer study most likely (IF it holds out) leads to a lowering of safe upper limit rather complete abandonment, to a level most people were not close to begin with.

Regarding resveratol, question is whether the benefits of wine (or grapes) can be reduced to resveratrol and if yes, is the megadosing (advocated by some) sensible? Remember the human epidemologies are for small amount of WINE (1-2 glasses per day). And did anyone see the study I posted on grape juice where the authors SPECIFICALLY noted that it is likely that it is the whole that matters rather than any one individual substance. Even if it was just the resveratrol, the megadosing based on few yeast, worm and fly studies and one fish study is not sensible, and CERTAINLY not sensible IMO given the otherwise extremely strict regime Duke seems to follow. That is, avoiding every possible little danger based on very little evidence (although, not IMO consistently as noted above), yet having no problem consuming various substances at supradietary levels well above existing HUMAN evidence for optimal dosages, despite their presumed strong pharmacological effects. Put otherwise, why not wait few more years for more determinate evidence than risk doing possibly major damage to ones body taking it too high too early. There was an increase in death rate in the fish right after the supplementation was begun, you know. If you have high risk of dying due health problems in the next few years, sure, take it as the risk of not taking might be higher, otherwise, I would wait. The good thing here is that for resveratrol the results are going to come fast as it is so promising and there is lots of money involved.

Edited by opales, 27 February 2006 - 03:41 PM.

[ajnast4r]

novel ideal #232... dont use sweetener!

or how about just using a little raw sugar?... jeez


and btw i agree about megadosing w/ resveratrol based off studies on simple lifeforms, being pretty stupid

[DukeNukem]

I use very little stevia, merely because I'm not a fan of the taste. However, certain products I use, like www.jayrobb.com's protein powder, uses stevia as a sweetener, and that's fine with me. I've not yet heard of anyone having medical problems with stevia usage, unlike the other non-sugar sweeteners. I use a very little bit of sucrose (table sugar) in my drinks, about 1-2 grams per 16 ounces.

As for resveratrol, it has a very short life in the body, and I spread out my doses throughout the day (including one longevinex in the morning, and one at night). Given that people have been drinking wine for a few 1000 years, I don't worry too much about negative ill effects. I think it's a pretty safe bet to take the dosage I'm taking. Other supplements I'm placing big bets on include blueberry extract, GliSODin, vitamin C and D, fish oil, lactoferrin, green/white tea extract, and turmeric. I probably "megadose" all of these...simply meaning I take double or triple what most people would take.

[focus]

well the difference between the proposed greatness of something like resveratrol for enhancing life/span, and something like sucralose which is simply a chemical used to satiate the addiction to sweets... is drastically different and cant be lumped into the same catagory.

Sorry, my point was more that these substances were once thought to be ok, good even, and are now in question or even disrepute. I used sucralose for awhile, still use resveratrol in the LEF cruciferous combo and take R-Plus.

For a sweetener, I now use the Y.S. brand of raw organic honey. I'm sure there is something terrible about it but it sure is good.

[xanadu]

I think red grapes are a great source of resveratrol. If people can get benefit from drinking wine, then the equivilent amount of grapes should have even more resveratrol in it.

[FunkOdyssey]

More food for thought...

Regarding Resveratrol :
http://www.sirtuins....-extension.html

FACT: Almost zero free resveratrol is found in the bloodstream after
oral dosing due to the conjugation of resveratrol with sulfur and
glucuronic acid in the liver. [1,2]

HYPOTHESIS: The evidenced effects of non-oral resveratrol dosing (for
example, in vitro or in vivo by injection) are not available by oral
resveratrol dosing.

        Hypothesis Test:

        Non-oral Resveratrol Effects
          * Blood thinning [3]
          * Ischemia protection [4]
          * Life extension [5]

        Oral Resveratrol Effects
          * Blood thinning [6]
          * Ischemia protection [7]
          * Life extension [8]

ERGO: The hypothesis is falsified since there exists at least three
evidenced effects of non-oral resveratrol that appear to be available
by oral resveratrol. We are thus compelled to adopt the contrary
hypothesis: at least some (if not all) evidenced effects of non-oral
resveratrol are available by oral resveratrol. There are means by
which resveratrol may deliver effect despite hepatic conjugation, but
mechanisms are beyond the scope of this logico-empirical-results
analysis.

(This analysis is expressed in formal logic following its empirical
referents.)
______________________________________________________

[1] http://www.hubmed.or...i?uids=15779070
[2] http://www.hubmed.or...i?uids=12554065

Non-oral Resveratrol Effects:

[3] British Journal of Pharmacology (1999): "trans-Resveratrol
inhibits human platelet aggregation both in vitro and in vivo."
http://www.nature.co...l/0702749a.html

[4] Brain Research (2003): "Resveratrol was injected i.p. (30 mg/kg
body weight) [...] This study demonstrated for the first time that
resveratrol, a polyphenolic antioxidant, can cross the blood-brain
barrier and exert protective effects against cerebral ischemic
injury."
http://www.hubmed.or...i?uids=12470882

[5] Nature (2003): "In yeast, resveratrol mimics calorie restriction
by stimulating Sir2, increasing DNA stability and extending lifespan
by 70%." NOTE: This is an instance of non-oral dosing because yeast
are ahepatic.
http://www.nature.co...ature01960.html

Oral Resveratrol Effects:

[6] Clinica Chimica Acta (1996): "studies were performed on 24 healthy
males aged 26-45 years [...] commercial juice lowered the IC50 for
thrombin (P < 0.001) whereas the resveratrol-enriched juice caused a
dramatic increase (P < 0.001). [...] We conclude that
trans-resveratrol can be absorbed from grape juice in biologically
active quantities and in amounts that are likely to cause reduction in
the risk of atherosclerosis."
http://www.hubmed.or...gi?uids=8814965

[7] Life Sciences (2005): "Male Balb/C mice were treated with
resveratrol for 7 days (50 mg/kg, gavage). [...] elevated levels of
MMP-9 were significantly attenuated in the resveratrol-treated mice as
compared to the vehicle MCAo mice. The study suggests that resveratrol
has protective effects against acute ischemic stroke." NOTE: Feeding
by "gavage" is tube-to-stomach feeding, which does not bypass the
liver.
http://www.hubmed.or...i?uids=16321402

[8] Current Biology (2006): "120 mg/g [ resveratrol / food ] caused an
increase of median and maximum lifespan of 33% and 27%, respectively
(p < 0.001, log rank test), and 600 mg/g food induced 56% and 59%
increase in median and maximum lifespan, respectively (p < 0.001, log
rank test). 600 mg/g food was significantly more effective than 120
mg/g food in prolonging lifespan (p = 0.01, log rank test)."
http://www.hubmed.or...i?uids=16461283

Progress of resveratrol life-extension research:
http://www.longevine...iments_full.jpg

______________________________________________________

Translating the hypothesis into formal logic for evaluation where

N = non-oral resveratrol dosing
O = oral resveratrol dosing

HYPOTHESIS: The evidenced effects of N are not available by O.

HYPOTHESIS-TEST STATEMENT:
If X is an effect of N, then X is not an effect of O.

Fleshing out that statement for clarity of translation:

For any effect X and any studies x and y, if x uses N and x finds X,
then it is NOT the case that if y uses O, y finds X.

Now translating it into second-order predicate logic:

(X)(x)(y)[ (Nx & Xx) -> ~(Oy -> Xy) ]

(I'll avoid stipulating that x =/= y for brevity)
Now instantiating it step-by-step into the first empirical case where

B = found blood-thinning
a = study [3]
b = study [6]

1. (X)(x)(y)[ (Nx & Xx) -> ~(Oy -> Xy) ]
2. (x)(y)[ (Nx & Bx) -> ~(Oy -> By) ]
3. (y)[ (Na & Ba) -> ~(Oy -> By) ]
4. (Na & Ba) -> ~(Ob -> Bb)

And then applying two replacement rules to step 4:

4. (Na & Ba) -> ~(Ob -> Bb)
5. (Na & Ba) -> ~(~Ob v Bb)  -  conditional exchange
6. (Na & Ba) -> (Ob & ~Bb)  -  de Morgan's

Now by the semantics of predicate logic we can see that the
hypothesis-test statement is false by observing that its antecedent
(Na & Ba) is true (study [3] has the properties N and B), yet its
consequent is false because in fact b (study [6]) has the properties O
and B. However, according to the hypothesis-test statement, b must
have the property ~B. So it turns out that ~Bb is false since Bb is
true, and thus the consequent (Ob & ~Bb) is false since one of its
conjuncts is false. Therefore, with a true antecedent and false
consequent, the whole statement (Ba & Na) -> (Ob & ~Bb) is false, and
thus the hypothesis is falsified by this single case alone.
Instantiating the hypothesis-test statement into the other two cases
cited above follows same steps to the same result.

Because the hypothesis is falsified we must by logical consequence
adopt the contrary: at least some (if not all) evidenced effects of
non-oral resveratrol are available by oral resveratrol.

http://www.IanGoddard.net

"Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct;
its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries."
Ludwig Wittgenstein

[the big b]

Given that people have been drinking wine for a few 1000 years, I don't worry too much about negative ill effects..

Well the ancient Romans drank a lot of wine, and many of them suffered illnesses from it. Though perhaps it was the lead in the wine that brought upon the ill effects...

[syr_]

Well the ancient Romans drank a lot of wine, and many of them suffered illnesses from it. Though perhaps it was the lead in the wine that brought upon the ill effects...

Lifespan those time were much much shorter for lack of modern medicine, I dont think the comparations stands.

[DukeNukem]

Big B, you quoted me out of context, as I was talking about resveratrol, not wine itself. I was saying that we've been consuming resveratrol (via wine) for quite some time, and so far it doesn't appear to have negative health effects. Wine, though, is a problem. As much as I love bold red wines (ah, Shiraz), I rarely drink.

Sry, life spans were shorter, on average, back then, but also healthier. People rarely died due to old age, they died due to accidents, infections, germs, the flu, and stuff that has mostly been eradicated in the last 100 years. A primary reason average ages were so low even 150 years ago (around 40 years) is merely because so many babies and children died, bringing the average way down. But, for the people who dodged those bullets of infections and whatnot, they were much healthier (and free from chronic diseases) than we are today, on average.

[DukeNukem]

To back up what I said in my last post, I read this yesterday, in the 1964 landmark book, "The Prospect of Immortality," by Robert Ettinger:

"[T]here seem to have been no successes whatever so far in extended human life, except statistical successes based on the reduction of infant mortality and conquest of disease."

BTW, brilliant book, read it in 90 minutes. Way ahead of its time, regarding the coming age of cryogenics. It seems, too, that back then, many more scientists believed that immortality was merely a matter of time.

[the big b]

To syr & dukenukem -

I was being sarcastic, not trying to prove any kind of point. Though I suppose if I don't add to the debate, I shouldn't add anything at all. Sorry about that.

[syr_]

It sounded strange, but I dont know you, could have been a serious fallacious statement for what i knew.

[biknut]

I just ran across this resveratrol study on rabbits. My apologies if it's already posted on this thread. What's the thinking about this?

Resveratrol promotes atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic rabbits.

Wilson T, Knight TJ, Beitz DC, Lewis DS, Engen RL.

Department of Veterinary Physiology, Iowa State University, Ames 50011, USA.

The hypothesis was tested that resveratrol, a compound in red wine, would inhibit atherosclerotic development in rabbits fed 0.5% cholesterol for 60 days. Rabbits were supplemented with or without oral resveratrol. During the study, body weights and food consumption were similar for the two groups. The lack of differences between liver weights and a series of serum parameters indicative of liver disease suggest that liver function was similar in the two groups. The diet produced hypercholesterolemia in both groups, but no differences in lipoprotein-cholesterol concentrations. The electrophoretic mobility of plasma low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and plasma LDL after induced oxidation also was not different between the groups. Staining of atherosclerotic lesions in the control and resveratrol-treated groups revealed that the resveratrol-treated rabbits had significantly more aortic surface area covered by atherosclerotic lesions (P < 0.02). Therefore, resveratrol promoted atherosclerotic development, rather than protect against it, by a mechanism that is independent of observed differences in gross animal health, liver function, plasma cholesterol concentrations, or LDL oxidative status.

PMID: 8684261 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....st_uids=8684261

[FunkOdyssey]

That isn't posted on this thread -- very interesting. I wonder what explanation there could be for those results.

[DukeNukem]

Funk, run this by your man, Sardi.

[Pablo M]

I emailed Sardi about about the supposed study group of people taking Longevinex. He said that it was soon to be reported.

BTW, I think a crucial point has escaped everyone. Sardi is now promoting the fact that Okinawans consume resveratrol-like molecules in the form of some type of plant leaf, and he mentions that the Chinese make tea from he shou wou which supposedly contains resveratrol (and Longevinex is extracted from polygonum cuspidatum). But these plants are grown in an oxygen-rich environment (Earth) so Sardi's argument that resveratrol is extremely unstable in oxygen falls apart in my view. Sure, Duke will say that oxygen degrades resveratrol once the plant is dead, but is Sardi's company growing the stuff right at Purity Products HQ, standing by with an airtight bubble and nitrogen hose? No. The mashed grape mixture used to make wine supposedly retains its resveratrol for quite some time. Add to that the fact that Longevinex is outright lying about resveratrol labelling, as Funk pointed out, and you have a real loser. Longevinex, the Protandim of red wine supplements. Expensive, proprietary, probably works, but why spend the money?

[trh001]

I just ran across this resveratrol study on rabbits. My apologies if it's already posted on this thread. What's the thinking about this?

Resveratrol promotes atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic rabbits.

Wilson T, Knight TJ, Beitz DC, Lewis DS, Engen RL.

Department of Veterinary Physiology, Iowa State University, Ames 50011, USA.

The hypothesis was tested that resveratrol, a compound in red wine, would inhibit atherosclerotic development in rabbits fed 0.5% cholesterol for 60 days. Rabbits were supplemented with or without oral resveratrol. During the study, body weights and food consumption were similar for the two groups. The lack of differences between liver weights and a series of serum parameters indicative of liver disease suggest that liver function was similar in the two groups. The diet produced hypercholesterolemia in both groups, but no differences in lipoprotein-cholesterol concentrations. The electrophoretic mobility of plasma low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and plasma LDL after induced oxidation also was not different between the groups. Staining of atherosclerotic lesions in the control and resveratrol-treated groups revealed that the resveratrol-treated rabbits had significantly more aortic surface area covered by atherosclerotic lesions (P < 0.02). Therefore, resveratrol promoted atherosclerotic development, rather than protect against it, by a mechanism that is independent of observed differences in gross animal health, liver function, plasma cholesterol concentrations, or LDL oxidative status.

PMID: 8684261 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....st_uids=8684261

Re. the rabbit hypercholesterolemic model, three for, one against, though you'll note all three positive results come from the same lab. [:o]


Wang Z, Zou J, Cao K, Hsieh TC, Huang Y, Wu JM. Related Articles, Links
Dealcoholized red wine containing known amounts of resveratrol suppresses atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic rabbits without affecting plasma lipid levels.
Int J Mol Med. 2005 Oct;16(4):533-40.
PMID: 16142383 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
2: Zou JG, Wang ZR, Huang YZ, Cao KJ, Wu JM. Related Articles, Links
Effect of red wine and wine polyphenol resveratrol on endothelial function in hypercholesterolemic rabbits.
Int J Mol Med. 2003 Mar;11(3):317-20.
PMID: 12579333 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
3: Wang Z, Huang Y, Zou J, Cao K, Xu Y, Wu JM. Related Articles, Links
Effects of red wine and wine polyphenol resveratrol on platelet aggregation in vivo and in vitro.
Int J Mol Med. 2002 Jan;9(1):77-9.
PMID: 11745001 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
4: Wilson T, Knight TJ, Beitz DC, Lewis DS, Engen RL. Related Articles, Links
Resveratrol promotes atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic rabbits.
Life Sci. 1996;59(1):PL15-21.
PMID: 8684261 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[mirian]

What I'm confused about is Longevinex shows on March 15, 2006 independant studies were done:

Product B shows a good comparison to Longevinex for actual active Trans Resveratrol:

http://ww1.prweb.com...ebshelflife.jpg

But, yet on resveratrol news it shows the same:

http://www.resveratr...htm#openingpage

One says Product B has a gelatin capsule and the other says vegetable capsule.

I'm trying to figure out what brand Product B is ?

I'm guessing Nature's Way resveratrol since they have the most active garlic pill too called Garlicin.

Anybody know who Product B is ???

I don't think it's Solaray listing 75mg like Nature's Way because
old 2004 testing shows Solaray as having hardly any activity.
But, Nature's Way is newer and wasn't out till after the 2004 testing.

[mirian]

Worst case scenario I know Longevinex doesn't have more Trans resveratrol than Nature's Way Resveratrol at 37.5mg per capsule vs. Longevinex listing 40mg. So, just take two Nature's Way for each Longevinex you would have taken. It's quite a deal being only 15 cents or so each capsule compared to $1 each of Longevinex.

I notice with now about 25 brands of resveratrol out now vs the mere 13 brands in 2004 when Sinclair did his testing. Why doesn't Longevinex do another Biomol study against the now 25 brands one of the new brands coming out after the 2004 Sinclair study was Nature's Way.

I'll tell you why using Product B as an example they are afraid of the results. This is their only product if it fails then they're done. Trans resveratrol activates Sirt 1 and Product B would have matched Longevinex, simple. Numbers don't lie.

[Matt]

Does anyone know whether Nature's way product is any goodl??? Because I have 60 caps of these and 30 of longevinex. I'd rather natures way because they are cheaper, but can't find much information on it! Any studies showing Nature's way increase SIRT1?

[Pablo M]

Matt: I don't think anyone knows whether any resveratrol supplement is any good.

[zoolander]

I would hold off on resveratrol for now.

I don't understand why people are still taking it considering that research is showing poor bioavailability in humans. Until an efficent delivery system is developed (eg. solid liquid nanoparticles, SLN) to increase resvertrols bioavailability I would wait.

Has anyone asked the question why biovavailability is poor? Surely the liver converts the resveratrol into it's inactive metabolite for a reason

Edited by zoolander, 28 September 2006 - 11:56 AM.

[xanadu]

When in doubt, go back to your roots. What is the root of the belief that res is beneficial? It goes to the mediteranean diet and scientists trying to find out what caused them to be healthier. They ruled out genetics and found it was diet. They found a number of things in the diet that helped and res was one of them. The other thing pointing to it was that red wine drinkers were healthier. This was also found to be true of those eating a lot of red grapes and trials showed that res was a potent antioxidant and made animals and humans healthier.

As for bioavailability, I don't know about that but being low in availability does not mean we should avoid res, IMO. What would be the down side of taking it, the cost? That's the only down side I can see. Even if you absorb only 1% of what you take, that might be all you need. The mediteranean people did not have res extracts, they just had red wine and red grapes along with the olive oil, tomatoes and other good things. They managed to limp along with probably less than 1mg per day of the stuff and may not have been able to absorb all of that. Yet they were healthier which brings us back to the beginning.