Resveratrol: Pulling the Big Red Lever

A small community of folk gently prod me with each new resveratrol study making its way through the research pipeline. Some of them sell the stuff, some are being helpful news scouts, but the general tenor is often "hey, check this out, best thing since sliced bread." This same behavior applies, with different small communities of folk, to most other better known (or better hyped) products of a similar class in recent years. I believe this all to be more than a touch overenthusiastic.

It has to be said that I'm a curmudgeon and rational, all round late adopter when it comes to applying biochemistry to my body. I'm not fundamentally opposed to the use of found or screened chemicals by any means, but metabolic science is hard. Very hard. Scientists don't yet have a good handle on the complexities involved; frankly, they don't even have a good handle on the complexities of using the mountains of information they are generating. As has usually been the case in human history, in the biotechnologies of metabolism, our ability to take action outstrips our ability to predict and control consequences.

With that in mind, let me say this: our metabolic biochemistry looks like a big wall full of levers. Some of them are painted red, and we think we understand what the instructions beneath these red levers say. Maybe. How much information do you feel you would like before you pull the big red levers in your own personal metabolism? What level of risk due to disease would you presently need to be suffering in order to take the risk represented by a new compound? How do you evaluate these levels of risk?

These are good questions; you'll find yourself in a position to be asking it often in the years ahead, as scientists become a good deal better at finding or generating new compounds for ever more narrow applications. There are no right answers; it's up to each of us to decide how we'd like to manipulate our own bodies. The sellers of resveratrol will rightfully argue that they are helping those who want to set forth on the basis of the information to date. From my point of view, however, resveratrol is a fair way from meeting the standard for something I'd choose to use.

However you think about this, I encourage you to do more reading than you were intending to do; there's a great deal of information out there on resveratrol.

The gold standard for science to back a form of metabolic manipulation is the research supporting the practice of calorie restriction. It is an open question to whether some shared mechanisms mean that calorie restriction mimetics like resveratrol can piggy-back on this wealth of data to a lower risk. But why take that risk? If you're healthy and young, why risk the use of a compound with comparatively little data behind it versus a lifestyle practice with a great deal of data behind it? Equally, why dive in now versus waiting for more information?

The scientific world is littered with biochemicals that performed wonderfully in mice and then fell by the wayside in humans. The medical and supplement world is littered with poor or varied formulations of chemicals that have little to do with the forms used to obtain well-known laboratory results. There are many slips between the lab and your body; many are very hard or even impossible for folk like you or I to detect ourselves, but each passing year will reduce their number in any given case.

As a final note, this is all a sideshow. It has no more application to the long-term future of medicine and enhanced longevity than whether or not you exercise regularly. It doesn't matter how much resveratrol you take. It wouldn't matter if the folks at Sitris Pharmaceuticals developed a miracle calorie restriction mimetic next year that gives 200% of the health and longevity benefits of actual calorie restriction with no downside. These line items would become a part of good health practices - but you will still age, and you will still weaken, suffer and die.

The point which often goes undiscussed by the CR folks, most biogerontologists, longevity gene fans (including people such as Sinclair and Guarente who are really studying the mechanisms by which CR works), centenarian researchers, most "anti-aging" physicians, etc. is that with these approaches the animals (and people) WILL STILL AGE and WILL STILL DIE! This approach does nothing but slow down the rate of aging -- it does not stop it or reverse it.

Metabolic manipulation is hard to perform safely; it's an enormously complex system, and dire consequences can be waiting to leap out decades down the line. Researchers are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the problem, with the goal of perhaps a decade or two of healthy life extension as the end result, a decade or two from now. Not to be sniffed at - but you will still age, suffer and die.

There is a better way forward, however, a way in which hundreds of millions of dollars could be used to eliminate an entire contributing class of the molecular damage that causes aging - and in that same 10 to 20 year timeframe. Our metabolism produces an aggregate rate of unrepaired cellular damage; calorie restriction and compounds like resveratrol appear to alter the functioning of metabolism to lower this rate of damage. A form of engine optimization, if you like. There are paths of scientific endeavor that aim at the easier task of repairing - or rendering irrelevant - this damage, however, rather than slowing down its accumulation. Why pay hundreds of dollars for super-expensive, super-effective oil when you can take your car to a mechanic and gain ten times the benefit, in other words.

The Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS) is one such view of repair-based longevity medicine, setting out to show that we understand far more of the damage that causes aging than we do about the metabolism that generates this damage. The point of easiest and most effective action is made quite clear: it is to reverse aging, not slow it.

Think of it this way: an expensively developed slowing of one cause of aging is a one-shot deal that does not help those already physically old. But the expensively developed method of repairing one cause of aging can be applied again and again, and it does help those who are already loaded down with age-related damage. What's more important: rushing after the expensive development of drugs that give short term gains, or laying down the foundations for science that will actually repair aging? Where would you apply the dollars?

Technorati tags: , ,


A very pessimistic post. And you miss one
very important point: timeline. If you want
to make it to the day they can reverse or nearly
reverse aging, then anything along the way which
gives you another decade or so will dramatically
increase your chances of getting there. The day
they are sure they have something which mimics
calorie restriction and gives you another 8 to
10 years (delays aging by this much), then you
may just have gotten the bridge you need to get
there. I'll take all the bridges I can get at
this point.

Posted by: Joel at November 3rd, 2006 6:08 AM

The alarmist tone of numerous commentaries I've read on the web regarding the Harvard resveratrol mouse study is really beginning to become irritating. It is all very well to argue that spending resources on developing means of repairing age-related damage is a higher pay-off strategy than fiddling with human metabolism. However, to base that argument in part on a claim that we know 'comparatively little' about what resveratrol does in humans seems a bit disengenuous. Resveratrol is a natural component of red wine. Humans have been consuming resveratrol in meaningful quantities (miligrams per serving or significant fractions thereof) as long as people have been making wine, which is to say, a very, very long time. If resveratrol were poisonous or the source of some complex denegenerative condition that only made itself apparent over decades, surely such a phenomenon would have been identified by now. To my knowledge, the only phenomena reasonably associated with resveratrol are the beneficial effects associated with the so-called "French Paradox," the details of which appear clearly to be confirmed in the Harvard Study. Consequently, as far as I'm concerned, the long history of human experience with the compound and the results of the scientific studies on resveratrol that we know about provide a very reasonable basis for my deciding to pull the red lever. I could not agree with Joel more. If resveratrol provides a means to get to the time when the repair approaches that SENS envisions are readily available, then I'll happily take full advantage of it.

Posted by: Elenion at November 3rd, 2006 10:14 AM

I agree with the last two posts. You treat the findings supporting Resveratrol's effects as a distraction on the road to defeat death. On the contrary. If Resveratrol works as Sinlair believes it does, and I see no evidence to refute his claims, then this will be the first real class of chemicals that slows human aging. This will ignite the public's interest in aging research and prove the Skeptics wrong who been saying for years that SENS science is bunk.

Posted by: Larry at November 3rd, 2006 7:20 PM

If I recall correctly, Michael Rae was (at least at one time) convinced that resveratrol did not work. His opinion is usually enough to convince me on most matters of nutrition and life extension. I'd be very interested to know what he thinks about resveratrol now.

Posted by: Kip Werking at November 4th, 2006 3:48 AM

Allow me to reiterate the key point: For someone in his 50's (like me) Resveratrol may make a lot of sense since we want to be around to take advantage of SENS when it happens. For my daughter, 22 and in her first year of Med School, it does not make sense to take Resveratrol (and I made that point to her). I might point out that your caveats apply to almost any new medication. Almost all medications affect metabolism in some way; that is why they tend to have (unintended) side effects. I tend to use new medications on my patients only if they have shown very significant advantages over the older meds and only after at least a year has passed to allow for treatment emergent side effects to appear. Everyone should be given enough info to make their own risk assessment. Do you want to take Lipitor to decrease a known risk of heart disease at the (now) known risk of liver damage? Lipitor affects metabolism, slows what used to be thought of as aging related disease, yet can cause new problems. Resevatrol appears to be safe, has been ingested for a couple thousand years in small quantities, and for an old guy may be worth the risk taking in higher quantities.

Posted by: ShrinkWrapped at November 4th, 2006 6:40 AM

As I see the Methuselah Foundation is listed as "required reading" on this blog, you might look into the information concerning Methuselah’s life and that of his contemporaries.

Early in the book of Genesis (chapter 5) very specific ages of the characters are mentioned.

Adam was 130 when he fathered his third son, Seth. He lived 800 more years, fathering more sons and daughters, finally dying at age 930 (Ch 5, verse 3).

Seth died at 912 (v. 8), after, at 105, fathering Enosh, who lived to be 905 (v. 11).

When Enosh was 90, he fathered Kenan, who died at age 910 (v. 14).

Then come Mahalalel (died at age 895) father of Jared (died at age 962), who fathered Enoch (“taken” at age 365—-v. 24) who fathered, at age 65, Methuselah who, as the oldest man in the Bible, died at 969 years of age (v. 27).

From Methuselah came Lamech (died at age 777) who in turn fathered Noah.

After reaching age 500, Noah fathered his three sons, including Shem.

When Noah was 600, the Flood occurs, radically changing the atmosphere and the earth’s environment. Noah died at age 950 (ch 9, v. 29).

Following the Flood, lifespans begin to shorten.

Chapter 11 picks up two years after the Flood, indicating Shem died at age 600 (v. 10-11). Shem’s son Arphaxad lived to be 438 (v. 12-13). Arphaxad’s son Shelah died at 433 (v. 14-15). Shelah’s son Eber lived to 464. Eber’s son Peleg died at age 239. Peleg’s son Reu live to 239. Reu’s son Serug died at 230. Serug’s son Nahor died at 148. Nahor’s son Terah reached age 205.

Terah’s son Abraham (yes, that Abraham, initially named Abram, who lived around 2000 B.C.) lived “only” to age 175 (ch 25, v. 7). Abraham’s son Isaac lived to 180 (Gen 35:28). Isaac’s son Jacob lived to 147. Jacob’s son Joseph died at 110 (Gen 50:26).

Moses died at 120.

Eventually, at about 1000 B.C. (3000 years ago) the Bible arrives at a “standard” age with King David announcing, “The days of our lives are seventy years; and if by reason of strength they are eighty years, yet their boast is only labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.” (Psalm 90:10)

We are still around that lifespan. Reaching 80 is pretty good. A hundredth birthday is celebrated by whole communities. 105 is very rare.

So what causes this gradual but significant decrease in lifespan after the Flood?

We keep looking for a magic chemical to lengthen our lives. Something allowed antediluvian humans to live hundreds of years; with men and women even conceiving and bearing children at these greatly advanced ages.

Of course, if you cannot allow for a Flood, or you discount Genesis as myth, you cannot even consider this line of questioning, and must continue thrashing about blindly for the fountain of youth.

And you will die before your hundredth birthday, just like almost everyone else has for the last 3,000 years.

Posted by: Dan at November 4th, 2006 10:16 AM

The research on resveratrol and the potential to extend human lifespan looks good so far. There is almost no question that a compound that functions as a calorie restriction mimetic could propel us toward our goal of physical immortality. The main problem is this: THERE IS NO AFFORDABLE, PURE RESVERATROL SUPPLEMENT OR DRUG CURRENTLY ON THE MARKET. The doses of resveratrol needed to extend or enhance animal lifespan extrapolate to an unrealistically high amount of pure, unoxidized trans-resveratrol (about 300 mg/day) for the average human. The few supplement purveyors who offer "pure" trans-resveratrol do not gauruntee the quality with regard to freshness (oxidation) and the amount of reveratrol offered in a daily dose may thin your blood but will not affect aging very much. Dose is the key and right now the dose needed to theoretically extend lifespan in humans is cost prohibitive.

Posted by: Andrew Brownson at November 5th, 2006 1:25 PM

Yes, but did Methuselah eventually whither into a cricket? After all, that's what happened to an immortal in Greek myth. Either idea is equally absurd.

Posted by: Bobbo at November 6th, 2006 8:03 AM

Reply to Andrew Brownson's 11/5 post:

Cost prohibitive? What is the cost and how can a safe dosage be obtained? The key scientists most directly involved in the various studies are taking it. How do they obtain it?

Posted by: Peter Bobley at November 16th, 2006 2:15 PM

It would have been nice if the article explained how much the reasearchers are taking.

Posted by: roscoe at November 17th, 2006 9:09 AM

In the online version of the New York Times dated November 2, 2006, "Yes, Red Wine Holds Answer. Check Doseage," the following was given:

"The mice were fed a hefty dose of resveratrol, 24 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. Red wine has about 1.5 to 3 milligrams of resveratrol per liter, so a 150-lb person would need to drink 750 to 1,500 bottles of red wine a day to get such a dose.

"Dr. Richard Hodes, director of the National Institute of Aging, which helped support the study, also said that people should wait for the results of safety testing. Substances that are safe and beneficial in small doses, like vitamins, sometimes prove to be harmful when taken in high doses, Dr. Hodes said.

"One person who is not following this prudent advice, however, is Dr. Sinclair, the chief author of the study. He has long been taking resveratrol, though at a dose of only five milligrams per kilogram. Mice given that amount in a second feeding trial have shown similar, but less pronounced, results on the 24-milligram-a-day dose he said.

Dr. Sinclair has had a physician check his metabolism, because many resveratrol preparations contain possibly hazardous impurities, but so far no ill effects have come to light. His wife, his parents, and 'half my lab' are also taking resveratrol, he said."

If I'm figuring right, a 220 pound human would have to take 500 mg. of resveratrol if they were trying to duplicate what Dr. Sinclair is taking. Right? That does not take into account the purity of what he's taking (is that the right word?) into account.

The resveratrol supplements I get come in 20mg capsules and cost $22.50 for a bottle of 60 (4 bottle order). So I would have to take 25 capsules if I weighed 220pounds. Which would cost about $10 per day! Again, is my math right?

Has anyone else seen any information from another source that would confirm the doseage that Dr. Sinclair is taking?

Posted by: Jim Gibbons at November 18th, 2006 7:57 PM

your math is good. The NY Times article is the only one I have seen with any dose info. BTW, if you wanted to take the dose the mice are getting, you would need to take 2.4 grams, if you weigh 220.

I guess the important quantity is the trans-resveratrol, which seems to be half or less of the total resveratrol on the supplements I compared.

Posted by: kj at November 25th, 2006 5:03 AM

I take a product that has a STANDARD amount of resveratrol. It is the only one that I have seen that is in a liquid form with a garanteed amount of resveratrol in each serving. I don't know, I think it tastes good and to me it works great. I have been taking it for about a year and a half. My results are great. I feel good. I know others who are seeing amazing results with weight, blood pressure, diabetes, other health benefits. I have seen the articles in the papers. I think it was in over 500 papers earliers this month. I am excited for more studies to be done!

Posted by: Tim at November 30th, 2006 8:24 PM

I do praise for those who have courage to try something new. Perhaps, this may be the best way to find out what is the best med. for reversing the aging process. There are lots of seniors who want to and can contribute to this society. I do strongly encourage people to try resveratrol - pill, wine or grape.

Posted by: mike at December 1st, 2006 6:10 AM

The first time I heard anything about resveratrol was this morning when I happened to read the online version of the New York Times dated November 2, 2006, "Yes, Red Wine Holds Answer. Check Doseage," article. At 52, I feel and look younger than my years, and credit that to both good genes and healthy habits. It sounds like just eating grapes or drinking red wine is not enough, so I would like to include resveratrol therapy, but am still unclear how that should be done. All of your comments are helpful, and I thank you. May I ask about safe and/or reputable sources that any of you would recommend, or does that border too close to advertising?

Posted by: Martha at December 1st, 2006 6:28 AM

Duplin Winery sells a resveratrol product made from the skins and seeds of muscadine grapes, but I don't know anything about the quality of the product. Does anyone have any information about this?

Posted by: greg at December 16th, 2006 3:09 PM

TO say why take XYZ to live 200 yearsinstead of 90 years as you will die anyway is to not be a curmudgeon bu t to be a self defeating, death wishing brat, that iss if you say that and do not take your resveratrol or whatever could do that.

Naturally, these curmudgeons are stuffing their faces with all the longevity drugs they can afford, and at the same time as they try to discourage others from increasing life span: a homocidal competitive tactic.

Posted by: david at December 17th, 2006 2:39 PM

I am excited about the usage of Resveratrol at this time, but I am reading a lot about the "proper" dosages for it to be beneficial. Would someone please respond about the various dosages they are taking , and if they are getting results with it. Normal dosages seem to be around 30 milligrams, and from some of the articles I've read, this would seem to be very low. Surely, some resveratrol is better than none. Please respond.

Posted by: gene at December 30th, 2006 7:12 PM

I want to say that many may be missing the close interactions plants have with their environment and how that relationship benefits us directly. Just like us, plants have natural defense mechanisms that incorporate phtochemicals like resveratrol to keep viruses, fungi, and other attackers at bay. The real damage we incur over our lives is due to the waning protection our bodies are able to manifest against the damaging effects of oxidation. Cut open an apple and let it sit for a few minutes. Notice how it turns brown? Obviously, free radical damage occurs quickly. The same thing is happening to us all the time internally and externally. Using antioxidants like resveratrol, ellagic acid, and quercetin provide us with an extra defensive posture against free radical damage and enhance our ability to minimize oxidation. All the other health benefits need to be studied thoroughly before a clear anti-aging delineation can be determined. Trials in thousands would be the norm and would allow the mapping of potential side effects as well health benefits derived.

Xak C

Posted by: Xak C. at January 9th, 2007 7:05 AM

The life extension foundation ran a good article about the dosages needed to duplicate the results from that study. They were 20 mg 2x per day If i remember right. and that amount is included in their resveratrol supplements.
The article is probaly availible at their website lef. org
It is broad based, concise and will probally answer all your questions.
For those looking for higher doses beyond-a-century has 25 grams of 50= trans-resveratrol product for 12 bucks http://www.beyond-a-century
dont forget the hypens

Posted by: larry at January 16th, 2007 8:29 PM

>Has anyone else seen any information from another source that would confirm the dosage that Dr. Sinclair is taking?

Yes... I've talked with Sinclair. Fortunately for him he looks like he only weighs ~130 lbs, so he gets off cheaper. He takes the Longevinex brand.

There's a clinical trial using resveratrol against colon cancer at UC Irvine right now that is using doses in these high ranges. Keep your eyes out for it... but remember that our main problem isn't technical:

Posted by: Bill at January 25th, 2007 12:38 PM

The only companies that give you 250mg or more of Resveratrol to the "Public" are these:

250mg Capsules

500mg Capsules:

It appears that all the others really aren't giving you much, or you have to be a business, with a tax id, and buy large quantities which will not be something most of us will be able to do.

Posted by: Anthony at January 30th, 2007 11:55 AM

There is some confusion about mouse/human equivalent dosages. it is usually calculated on the basis of the cube root of the ration of the masses, to allow for size/metabolic dosages. The mouse to human scaling factor works out to 4.3, so the 20 mg/kg mouse dose would be 4.7 mg/kg in a human. This is close to the 5 mg/kg Dr. Sinclair has been quoted as using. For a 70 kilo (168 lb) man, that would 350 mg a day. The toxicity studies have shown in mice that doses over 20 times this do not harm the mice. There also is a linear dose/respone relationship in the effects that have been studied so far, so to some extent more is better. To emulate the mice in Sinclair's study, one could take either the Bioforte (two 250 mg resveratrol capsules) or the Revgenetics (one 500 mg resveratrol capsule). Country Life also makes a 250 mg resveratrol capsule.

All three of the above mentioned products use an extract from Giant Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) standardized to 50% trans-resveratrol. Unfortunately, these extracts also contain emodin, a laxative substance that is found in the plant. Both Bioforte and Revgenetics claim to control for the amount of emodin, I don't know about Country Life. But in this quantity, even a low amount of emodin causes a laxative effect. Some people can tolerate or grow used to it, others cannot. Other extracts on the market, with less resveratrol (eg., 20% or 25%), have a higher percentage of emodin. If one takes a 500 mg dose with these, you will be VERY uncomfortable for several days (I know from experience ):

I am lucky enough to know people in the herb and spice import business, and found a Chinese source for 98% resveratrol extract, and lab tested it. (It would not, I think, be a profitable business for me encapsulating it and selling it; this is for personal use.) After four weeks my HDL cholesterol was up 10 points, arthritis symptons are alleviated (resveratrol is a cox-2 inhibitor like celebrex) and my exercise tolerance has increased. I may not live longer, but I think I will enjoy it more. Given the lack of problems in toxicity studies in rodents and humans, and what is known about its mechanism of action, I feel at my age that the benefits far, far outweigh any risks.

Posted by: Richard at February 15th, 2007 7:19 AM

I was interested in Resveratrol-but, these comments seem so contrived -right down to the 5th or 6th one that makes no sense. It is almost like an infomercial. Especially when you get to the"It would not be a profitable business for me to encapsulate it and sell it"-Although I know people in the herb and spice import business!! I also know "people in the herb and spice business and find NO ONE with a 98% pure product of Resveratrol..-----Lets see this post!!

Posted by: liz at March 3rd, 2007 7:50 PM

There is a lot of healthy skepticism on this message board, but I am going to give reseratrol a try. The problem is deciding what dosage and supplier? Some cost too much, huge markup. Others have small doses. Quality? Has anyone used "Healthy Resolve" from the Second Opinion newsletter? They seem to have good supplements, but they cost too much. Swanson is cheap, natural, but they only have 30 mg. doses.

Posted by: Steve Wimer at March 4th, 2007 2:03 PM

I terms of dose (WRT Steve Wimer's query), I'd follow David Sinclair's dosage of approximately 5 mg/kg/day trans-resveratrol.

Many people have posted their experience with higher doses of resveratrol at the Immortality Institute forums.

Posted by: Tintinet at March 17th, 2007 8:12 AM

While I appreciated Dan's detailed text transcription of the pre-flood extra-longevity lineage of those biblical people he listed, I disagree that this is beyond our control. We have fossils of plants that are purported to be pre-flood from a creationists point of view. Some of these plants, like the ferns, have very large leaves and branches, and along with the exotic, to us dinosaurs are now extinct - everything about that era was unusual and larger than life. Perhaps the lifespan was longer too. Some modern day ferns are very high in quercetin, although at very high dosages as when cattle consume this are mutagenic, quercetin also increases SIR1 activity (Sinclair). We do not know the chemical composition of those plants of the time and though it is speculative, perhaps they contained larger amounts of growth stimulating or longevity promoting compounds like resveratrol with less of the cytotoxic or side effect inducing compounds like emodin that beset us in Hu Zhang (unless we go the next step to purify and remove the toxin which is being done). We can also use our intellect and research to possibly discover what some of those compounds were. Perhaps resveratrol was one of those compounds that has survived the flood in some plants - if you believe in the deluge biblical account(everything from the emerging studies points to the possibility that this does confer longer life and better health to organisms). God speaks through his word in many ways that we should be wise and use the resources of the earth to do good. If we can live longer to promote peace, show others the way to God (in my belief point people to Jesus Christ as their savior)and keep people living a more healthy, vigorous life then why would God be against this longevity from Resveratrol. He may be allowing this to be discovered or revealed at this point in history. There is also a part of Revelations in the bible where it talks about the new earth that God will create and how those who live only to 100 will be thought to be accursed.

Posted by: Brien at March 28th, 2007 4:21 PM

I have read with interest the posts on this new "wonder-drug". The latest posts imply that a 350mg/day dose for a 168 lb. man would be the appropriate dosage. Unfortunately, this 'life extention' (do'nt sue me,- I'm just using the words!) RDA (recommended daily allowance) is a "hit-or-miss" proposition since there is no quality control of purity of product (trans-Resveratrol).

Also, why would Life Extention Foundation be selling 25mg. capsules if the RDA is 10 times that amount??

Someone scoffed at the 98% purity claim and the next closest purity (according to posts here) is 25-50%.... Is that correct?

Has anyone solved the "exlax" (emodin) problem with the higher doses mentioned here?

Bottom line: where can you get the 250mg. capsules with a GUARANTEED purity of (what's necessary?) 80%?? 100% ??? but w/o correspondingly high "exlax" problems? oh, almost forgot....and for a reasonable price??

Posted by: Tim Dodson at March 31st, 2007 2:39 PM

A new study will be released by Dr. Sinclair in June. This study is using healthy non-obese mice as subjects and should refuel the interest in Resveratrol. It is actually the trans-resveratrol isomer which has been used in his and other peer-reviewed studies going back to 1994 in which resveratrol has been shown to induce apotosis in cancer cell lines, promote DNA repair and exhibit positive cardio-vascular effects. I am currently taking one supplement which does provide the study amounts. I have not noticed any effects from the emodin in it. The supplier's site posts a certificate of analysis which, if accurate, supports their ingredient claim of 250mg per capsule. I will refrain from mentioning the brand name however in conformance with this blog's policy against commercialisation.

Posted by: Robert Hanson at April 2nd, 2007 6:55 AM


Posted by: DAVE WALSH at April 9th, 2007 2:50 PM

Well after being diagnosed with NHL type B Follicular cancer....I am trying this today for the first tine. I have gone through tons of CT scans, Gallium scan, bone marrow extraction, 2 Biopsies and 2 different chemos...and the lumps are back...mostly in my neck shoulder area on my left side.
Recently in the past 2 days my jaw line has swollen up quite a bit...tried Advil but did not bring the swelling down.
Now my oncology department wants to do a stem cell transplant. (and other oncologists pegged me at having 5 years to live...WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE..seeing as I am only 39)
I feel great and have lots of energy..and would say I am in picture perfect health if it were not for NHL

I am taking Resveratrol to hopefully combat the cancer cells....even if I get a bit of relief and have the inflamation decrease I will be happy.
I weigh in around 220lbs and started taking 500mg.

I will post on here later how things go.

Posted by: Jerry Munsie at April 13th, 2007 8:43 PM

Hey "Reason" - quite a compelling video! I saw it the night it aired.. I'd have to agree, esveratrol will change how we look at aging.

Posted by: AgelessJoe at June 11th, 2007 8:47 PM

Well here I am middle of July.....Resveratrol did nothing for me.

Posted by: jerry munsie at July 12th, 2007 7:57 AM

Sorry to hear the bad news, Jerry.

Although this drug still seems very promising, there is too much more work to be done before passing it to the public. Hopefully, in 3-5yrs we will have enough research to produce this drug in oral form in a pure state, with proper dosages, and a lack of "exlax." Until then, exercise!

Posted by: James at October 25th, 2007 9:25 PM

This is for Liz...skepticism is the only intelligent way to approach new 'wonder' or 'miracle' anything as there are so many scammers out there. But just because several companies try to cash in with flashy ads and over the top claims doesn't mean it doesn't work. Nor does failure to find it, means it doesn't exist. I found a site that sells 98% pure trans resveretral in various sized bags of loose powder. I bought the the 25g bag which cost me about $57.00 and lasted me about a month (taking 1/4 tsp/399 mg per day) This is assayed and includes the certificate. I've found several sites (one offering a kilo for $697.00-wow) and several importers offering huge barrels of the stuff in auctions. Search under bulk or wholesale resveretral.
I'm in my mid 50's and have had a carotid endarderectomy (runs in my family)so am interested in anything promoting vascular health first and foremost. (my doctor gave me statins and aspirin-no thanks) As to the hype-there is a case study showing a guy who went blind regained his eyesight on resveretral. Not a miracle-the resveretral cleaned the blockage out of the retinal vessels and restored blood flow. Other studies show it cleans out the accumulated by-products of metabolism which accrue over the years in individual cells and reduce their ability to function properly.(cellular-one of the current theories of aging).
As to extending lifespan-I think some people are kind of missing the boat. We are at the stage of discovering that many things can contribute to good health and or slow the aging process-things like exercise, reduced caloric intake, certain supplements, diet, not smoking, etc. But slowing an individual part of one aging process is a far cry from extending life span. Utilizing every strategy out there today doesn't guarantee you will live one day longer. But I'm fairly certain it insures a more active, full, disease, pain and hospital free lifestyle until that day arrives. Works for me!

Posted by: susan at March 2nd, 2009 6:49 AM

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.