51 replies to this topic

[bluemoon]

Did you read what I wrote? Do you disagree? Why do you continue to bicker over trivial details?

If it turned out that Sinclair and every other resveratrol researcher took 1mg per day, would you? What about 20g? If a dose isn't supported by evidence, it isn't worth taking, and talking about who takes what is just appeal to authority. Just because Linus Pauling ingested 18 g of vitamin C per day for decades doesn't mean it's an ideal dose.

Why is this bickering over trivial details?

If Sinclair took just 1 mg, I'd stay in that range. If he took 20g, I couldn't afford it.
Sinclair seems to have taken the 5mg/kg, which several here have. I can't see why that and the lower amount Kurzweil takes are not interesting pieces of information.

(Just saw the 300g typo! That might be a little high, David...)

Edited by Holmes, 03 June 2009 - 09:51 PM.

[maxwatt]

Did you read what I wrote? Do you disagree? Why do you continue to bicker over trivial details?

If it turned out that Sinclair and every other resveratrol researcher took 1mg per day, would you? What about 20g? If a dose isn't supported by evidence, it isn't worth taking, and talking about who takes what is just appeal to authority. Just because Linus Pauling ingested 18 g of vitamin C per day for decades doesn't mean it's an ideal dose.

Why is this bickering over trivial details?

If Sinclair took just 1 mg, I'd stay in that range. If he took 20g, I couldn't afford it.
Sinclair seems to have taken the 5mg/kg, which several here have. I can't see why that and the lower amount Kurzweil takes are not interesting pieces of information.

They are data points, but not of the best quality. The doses are hearsay, and confounded by the passage of time. We often discard outlying data points. Interestingly a press article circa 2007 about Sinclair mentioned that several of the researchers in his lab were taking resveratrol, but at least one of them was not; he was waiting for further testing. They had looked at the same data and drew different conclusions. Or maybe the emodin in Longevingnex vintage 2007 was too much for him. I've no idea what they are doing now.

I suggest taking a look at Resv and Brain Plaque thread for a mouse study and information on human-equivalent doses. There is an implication that 1.7 grams could be a proper dose to hold Alzheimer's Dsease at bay.

And Holmes: you've made your point several times re: Kurzweil and Sinclair apparently taking lower doses, and people have responded generally by challenging the validity of the claim, or by citing studies. I don't care what Kurzweil takes, I want to see his data. An "argument from authority" is not well thought of here. Then you make the same point again. What reaction is it that you are looking for?

Edited by maxwatt, 03 June 2009 - 10:03 PM.

[bluemoon]

They are data points, but not of the best quality. The doses are hearsay, and confounded by the passage of time. We often discard outlying data points. Interestingly a press article circa 2007 about Sinclair mentioned that several of the researchers in his lab were taking resveratrol, but at least one of them was not; he was waiting for further testing. They had looked at the same data and drew different conclusions. Or maybe the emodin in Longevingnex vintage 2007 was too much for him. I've no idea what they are doing now.

What I've heard Sinclair say as well as have read is that he, his parents and "half of his lab" took it.
Seems accurate. Sinclair's email to the Immt Ist's treasurer with respect to the 320mg is hearsay?

I suggest taking a look at Resv and Brain Plaque thread for a mouse study and information on human-equivalent doses. There is an implication that 1.7 grams could be a proper dose to hold Alzheimer's Dsease at bay.

That is good, but we don't know about lower doses, and higher doses can have negative side effects.
If people feel it is worth it to possibly lower Alzheimer's risk while risking possible side effects at 1.7 grams,
then go for it. At this point, unless I had Alzheimer's, I would not do that.

And Holmes: you've made your point several times re: Kurzweil and Sinclair apparently taking lower doses, and people have responded generally by challenging the validity of the claim, or by citing studies. I don't care what Kurzweil takes, I want to see his data. An "argument from authority" is not well thought of here. Then you make the same point again. What reaction is it that you are looking for?

I have responded to people's questions or have cleared up misstatements or false assumptions. I do care what Kurzweil takes because it offers more information on dosage. I also think others are interested. Yes, I realize you and VG are not interested. Anothony brings up Dr. Maroon and Dr. Oz and their doses, and I don't see anything wrong with that either.

[sUper GeNius]

What a nasty, tense place the resveratrol board has become. I seem to remember a time when discussions were focused around science and personal experiences with long-term resv usage.

It doesn't matter at all which doctor/researcher ingests how many milligrams of t-resv. All we really have is mouse data, the experiences of people on these boards (lab values, etc), and human data from the diabetes trials on the way. If we use this information as our guide, perhaps we can avoid these veiled arguments about brand preference.

Respectfully,
VG

I've lowered my dosage of resveratrol substantially. I'm taking 100-200 mg a day along with a number of other polyphenols in moderate doses. From what I can see, the data don't justify higher doses, given my current risk tolerance. In addition, I had been experiencing intermittent joint aches when taking higher doses of resveratrol.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 04 June 2009 - 02:40 AM.

[Crepulance]

I think there's substantial credibility and reason to give credence to Kurtz's choice to take 100mg. Just as I believe there is valid reason to give credence to Sinclair's ~320mg. The truth of the matter is, NO ONE knows the exact amount for the most beneficial effect. If we did, this board would be a joyous gathering of satisfied ressies, as opposed to the somewhat organized chaos it is now. So following the steps of people like sinclair and kurtz, would be like listening to an astronaut's thoughts on an untested space mission. Sure they might not be right, but I'd much sooner follow their advice than some random shmuck on a message board until we get concrete findings. Even though we haven't yet seen Kurtz's reasonings for taking 100mg, it doesn't mean he doesn't have them, and you should allow some privilege to the idea that he's probably thought it out significantly and has his reasons. With that said, I'd like to see his reasoning, and still have no concrete evidence.


Crep

What a nasty, tense place the resveratrol board has become. I seem to remember a time when discussions were focused around science and personal experiences with long-term resv usage.

It doesn't matter at all which doctor/researcher ingests how many milligrams of t-resv. All we really have is mouse data, the experiences of people on these boards (lab values, etc), and human data from the diabetes trials on the way. If we use this information as our guide, perhaps we can avoid these veiled arguments about brand preference.

Respectfully,
VG

I've lowered my dosage of resveratrol substantially. I'm taking 100-200 mg a day along with a number of other polyphenols in moderate doses. From what I can see, the data don't justify higher doses, given my current risk tolerance. In addition, I had been experiencing intermittent joint aches when taking higher doses of resveratrol.

[imarobot]

Sure they might not be right, but I'd much sooner follow their advice than some random shmuck on a message board until we get concrete findings. Even though we haven't yet seen Kurtz's reasonings for taking 100mg, it doesn't mean he doesn't have them, and you should allow some privilege to the idea that he's probably thought it out significantly and has his reasons. With that said, I'd like to see his reasoning, and still have no concrete evidence.

His opinion might carry more weight than some random person -- until that random person quotes scientific articles and shows a deep understanding of the biochemistry. Based on those criteria, there are a few people here I'd listen to well before Kurzweil. Nothing against the man, but I'm not swayed much by his fame or his personality or his entourage.

Edited by imarobot, 08 June 2009 - 05:12 PM.

[Crepulance]

Yes, but I'm sure kurtz too has scientific articles and a deep understanding of the biochemistry as well to point to, and for now, it's not illogical to lean towards his reasonings as opposed to someone on here.


Crep

Sure they might not be right, but I'd much sooner follow their advice than some random shmuck on a message board until we get concrete findings. Even though we haven't yet seen Kurtz's reasonings for taking 100mg, it doesn't mean he doesn't have them, and you should allow some privilege to the idea that he's probably thought it out significantly and has his reasons. With that said, I'd like to see his reasoning, and still have no concrete evidence.

His opinion might carry more weight than some random person -- until that random person quotes scientific articles and shows a deep understanding of the biochemistry. Based on those criteria, there are a few people here I'd listen to well before Kurzweil. Nothing against the man, but I'm not swayed much by his fame or his personality or his entourage.

[maxwatt]

Yes, but I'm sure kurtz too has scientific articles and a deep understanding of the biochemistry as well to point to, and for now, it's not illogical to lean towards his reasonings as opposed to someone on here.


Crep

Sure they might not be right, but I'd much sooner follow their advice than some random shmuck on a message board until we get concrete findings. Even though we haven't yet seen Kurtz's reasonings for taking 100mg, it doesn't mean he doesn't have them, and you should allow some privilege to the idea that he's probably thought it out significantly and has his reasons. With that said, I'd like to see his reasoning, and still have no concrete evidence.

His opinion might carry more weight than some random person -- until that random person quotes scientific articles and shows a deep understanding of the biochemistry. Based on those criteria, there are a few people here I'd listen to well before Kurzweil. Nothing against the man, but I'm not swayed much by his fame or his personality or his entourage.

This was covered while you were away.

Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

[TianZi]

I've read Kurzweil's new book, Transcend, and can't really recommend it. Big step down from Fantastic Voyage. I was very disappointed.

My hunch is that he claims in Transcend he's taking 50 mg of resveratrol twice daily because, not so coincidentally, that's the precise dosage of the "Ray & Terry" product he sells on his website. Probably the best price point for him, and so it becomes his recommended dosage in Transcend, the optimal amount to "keep you alive long enough now so that you can live forever!" Right.

In a similar vein, Transcend has about 15 pages of recommended recipes that almost all contain some "Ray & Terry" food product. Pretty lame.

[bluemoon]

Since maxwatt locked the Best Resvertrol thread, I'll respond here.
I see no reason why people think that Kurzweil doesn't have excellent consultants, including whoever advised
him and Dr. Grossman to take 100mg a day.

I don't care that he doesn't have a "real PhD" and his accomplishments speak or themselves.

I think we will learn why he takes 100mg a day, but that is all my scientist friend as well, and he and others caution against going higher until more is known. Colleagues and doctors he knows have gone up to 500mg, but had severe reactions so quit. That was with the best stuff from RevGenetics as well. No emodin.

maxwatt's claim that the cause is something else isn't convincing since their problems ceased after quitting.

People have a right to know that there are top people who recommend lower doses until more is know. If they want to try higher, than fine, but people reading this forum may get the impression it perfectly fine to go to 500mg or 1000mg, and it isn't for everyone.

Several here have mentioned side effects after taking higher doses.

Edited by Holmes, 10 June 2009 - 03:37 AM.

[niner]

Since maxwatt locked the Best Resvertrol thread, I'll respond here.
I see no reason why people think that Kurzweil doesn't have excellent consultants, including whoever advised
him and Dr. Grossman to take 100mg a day.

I don't care that he doesn't have a "real PhD" and his accomplishments speak or themselves.

I think we will learn why he takes 100mg a day, but that is all my scientist friend as well, and he and others caution against going higher until more is known. Colleagues and doctors he knows have gone up to 500mg, but had severe reactions so quit. That was with the best stuff from RevGenetics as well. No emodin.

maxwatt's claim that the cause is something else isn't convincing since their problems ceased after quitting.

People have a right to know that there are top people who recommend lower doses until more is know. If they want to try higher, than fine, but people reading this forum may get the impression it perfectly fine to go to 500mg or 1000mg, and it isn't for everyone.

Several here have mentioned side effects after taking higher doses.

My god Holmes, you're really on a mission, aren't you? This acquaintance of a friend of yours who had the hypoglycemic response is just proof that RevGenetics 500mg resveratrol is doing what it's supposed to do; lower blood sugar. The guy apparently had low blood sugar to begin with, and took too much resveratrol. So what? Others have higher blood sugar, and more resveratrol might benefit them. You seem to be under the impression that we are conning people into overdosing on resveratrol. On the contrary, this forum is full of discussion about side effects. This is an evidence-based place. Why don't you and Crepulance start a blog? You could call it ArgumentByAuthority.com, and talk about regimens based on the purported examples of people who are famous for things unrelated to pharmaceutics.

[hamishm00]

[applause]

[bluemoon]

My god Holmes, you're really on a mission, aren't you? This acquaintance of a friend of yours who had the hypoglycemic response is just proof that RevGenetics 500mg resveratrol is doing what it's supposed to do; lower blood sugar. The guy apparently had low blood sugar to begin with, and took too much resveratrol. So what? Others have higher blood sugar, and more resveratrol might benefit them. You seem to be under the impression that we are conning people into overdosing on resveratrol. On the contrary, this forum is full of discussion about side effects. This is an evidence-based place. Why don't you and Crepulance start a blog? You could call it ArgumentByAuthority.com, and talk about regimens based on the purported examples of people who are famous for things unrelated to pharmaceutics.

No, I'm not on a mission.

I am seeking information like many others here. I do know a top scientist,and he knows other scientists and M.D.s. who were taking resveratrol and stated bad reactions when they went to 500mg, even of 98% purity RevGenetics.

I am a consumer as I assume everyone here but Anthony is, and think it is important people know that the very top guy, Sinclair, was taking 300mg of Longevinex for 3 years and Kurzweil, who is hyper careful about health, still takes 100 mg of res.

But why are the two navigators, "niner" and "maxwatt" repeatedly belittling this info and now shutting down a thread?

Seriously, I think many reading this would like to know.

maxwatt and Anthony can also explain why they pretended not to know Sinclair was taking 300mg of Longevinex for 3 years.

Edited by Holmes, 10 June 2009 - 11:45 AM.

[maxwatt]

Since maxwatt locked the Best Resvertrol thread, I'll respond here.
I see no reason why people think that Kurzweil doesn't have excellent consultants, including whoever advised
him and Dr. Grossman to take 100mg a day.

I don't care that he doesn't have a "real PhD" and his accomplishments speak or themselves.

I think we will learn why he takes 100mg a day, but that is all my scientist friend as well, and he and others caution against going higher until more is known. Colleagues and doctors he knows have gone up to 500mg, but had severe reactions so quit. That was with the best stuff from RevGenetics as well. No emodin.

maxwatt's claim that the cause is something else isn't convincing since their problems ceased after quitting.

People have a right to know that there are top people who recommend lower doses until more is know. If they want to try higher, than fine, but people reading this forum may get the impression it perfectly fine to go to 500mg or 1000mg, and it isn't for everyone.

Several here have mentioned side effects after taking higher doses.

My god Holmes, you're really on a mission, aren't you? This acquaintance of a friend of yours who had the hypoglycemic response is just proof that RevGenetics 500mg resveratrol is doing what it's supposed to do; lower blood sugar. The guy apparently had low blood sugar to begin with, and took too much resveratrol. So what? Others have higher blood sugar, and more resveratrol might benefit them. You seem to be under the impression that we are conning people into overdosing on resveratrol. On the contrary, this forum is full of discussion about side effects. This is an evidence-based place. Why don't you and Crepulance start a blog? You could call it ArgumentByAuthority.com, and talk about regimens based on the purported examples of people who are famous for things unrelated to pharmaceutics.

Are you voting him off the island? I can see no reason for Holmes' to be doing this unless he works for a low-dose resveratrol company.

ArgumentByAuthority.com can also be based on Lewis Carol's Rule of Three (as stated by the Bellman in Carol's poem The Hunting of the Snark: "What i tell you three times is true.") Repeat a thing often enough, and by the third repetition people begin believing it. If your audience may be unimpressed by an argument, simply repeat it with slightly different phrasing, or with additional and preferably irrelevant details. You can then argue about the details, another rhetorical ploy. Lawyers use this principle to sway juries, and publicists use it in writing press releases, even press releases for resveratrol.

Other rhetorical tropes that must be used include Straw Man Arguments and of course The Obtuse Response: never responding to what has been said, but repeating one's premise (see the Rule of Three.)

[Anthony_Loera]

No, I'm not on a mission.

I am seeking information like many others here

Sorry, that is incorrect. You are just repeating your "views" over and over... and keeping this thread at the top of the forum board even when we have already passed information to readers. You are making this thread irrelevant for information now, because you continue to post the same "views" to the point where they appear spammy.

Look here is a summary:
1- It certainly appears that David Sinclair has moved on and you can't accept this.
Between the Sirtris and Shacklee formulations he had access to and Glaxo resources, there is no doubt. This shows David's 250mg capsule next to the Nitro capsules. These pictures came from an earlier thread post in this very forum. I simply used the search function, maybe you should consider that as well:



2- You also advocate Kurzweils dose for yourself, yet in another thread you stated you take 300mg-400mg. So regardless of Kurzweil, you are ok to take much more.
3- You mention you know special people that take resveratrol, but do not provide any other info, so these people can be fully imaginary only to serve the purpose of harping on a low dose resveratrol product.
4- You don't buy Ray's resveratrol that he sells which doesn't make sense since you take his word on dosage, so why wouldn't you take his recommended product? Instead you keep on harping on another product, all while saying you are looking for information.
5- See Maxwatt's link regarding your product, here maxwatt stopped the thread as no new information was being furnished by you about resveratrol, as the discussion was again about your views about Kurzweil.
6- Look to the posts in the 500mg thread for studies that have appeared over the years, or search this forum as this has come up numerous times. Why rely on one man's opinion?

I have to agree with Maxwatt when he says:

I can see no reason for Holmes' to be doing this unless he works for a low-dose resveratrol company.

Holmes, I see no new information from you and this thread has now become an advertisement for Kurzweil and makes no inroads to the resveratrol discussion, oh...and completely repetitive and spammy based on your "views".

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 10 June 2009 - 01:38 PM.

[maxwatt]

I am going to close this thread too, as many long-time members appear to object to it, and no worthwhile discussion is taking place.

[bluemoon]

maxwatt has closed two threads becuase he does not like the information on them.

Anthony has twisted my words several times here, which I think is unfortunate from a seller. There are many examples, but the latest is that I take 300-400mg. No, that was only for a few weeks 18 months ago. I explained this, so please don't mislead others.

niner says I'm a sock puppet for Longevinex, and Anthony says I'm an advertisement for Ray and Terry's.
Who am I working for guys?

I still think people might want to know why both Anthony and maxwatt played dumb about the Sinclair information that the Immortality Institute scooped back in 2007. Sinclar said he took 300mg of Longevinex for 3 years. Come on, level with us.

Kurzweil takes 100mg, and yes, the person I know is a top scientist who cautions against higher doses, as have his colleagues who have had strong side effects with RevGenetics at 500mg.

Why isnt this information important? might it be why Kurzweil is taking 100mg?

Edited by Holmes, 10 June 2009 - 03:18 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

No twisting...

the post does not say 18 months ago (when you took 300mg-400mg of resveratrol) . Most folks can click on the link and read this for themselves that this is not so.

In regards to niner's comments... I agree with him completely, as a quick search in this forum reveals you like to post the word "Longevinex" as often as possible, and continue to be repetitive even after you have been given alot of information.

David Sinclair has moved on... I am not playing dumb, but I believe he has moved on.
Remember in 2007, Longevinex was using Licaps from Capsugel using the old formulation. Longevinex does not use Licaps from Capsugel anymore. I believe Sinclair has moved on from this product. High purity resveratrol was not something that has been around for 3 years in any supplement. Dr. Sinclair had an aversion to resveratrol in your average supplements before 2007 because of possible contamination and high purity was not available unless you purchased synthetics.

High purity was only recently introduced in late 2007 into supplements, and it was not by Longevinex.

Again, Dr. Sinclair has moved on to better products that are higher in purity. That is reflected in his shacklee formulation that had 98% trans-resveratrol in Vivix, then later in his 250mg capsule he shows in the picture. Regardless of what he took before high purity resveratrol was available in 2007, if Sinclair has moved on to something else with a higher purity... wouldn't that prompt you to move on as well instead of being fixated on what he was taking before? Well if Sinclair is showing you a 250mg capsule of micronized resveratrol, wouldn't that be your next choice?

You have not brought new information to this thread, you simply repeat yourself.

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 10 June 2009 - 04:45 PM.

[maxwatt]

Holmes keeps posting the same thing. He's been warned, several member have complained besides the ones he has mentioned. He opens new threads on the same topic with the same non-information when I close a thread. I have therefore suspended him for two days. PM me if you agree or disagree.

[Anthony_Loera]

I don't have to PM you Maxwatt, I will state that I agree with you.

[kenj]

Kurzweil's etc. recommendations aside, - resveratrol definitely drives my glucose levels down, taken with and w/o food, in the gram range, - so FWIW I would never classify high dose as 'safe' for everyone: low dose seems to be more gentle in this regard. (I do take a gram couple times/week. )

[2tender]

If a person is taking RSV common sense dictates that if they are getting sides (not feeling well) at a certain dose or directly as a result of RSV ingestion they should either stop or lower the dosage. I use slightly over 2 grams a week, if I have any sides I stop, then resume. The dosage of any supplement is a matter of personal physiology, as in the case of Vitamin C, some people can ingest a few grams a day others cant tolerate 500 mgs.