1708 replies to this topic

[Anthony_Loera]

jack868,

Resveratrol comes in powder form. I hope to clarify a couple things here that I would have hoped you would have known, or found out during your research that you have mentioned here.

Longevinex uses lipcaps which are liquid filled capsules. To be able to encapsulate the Resveratrol, the powder must first be introduced to an oil of some sort depending on your particular formulation. Then the 'goop' as you mentioned, is encapsulated using the patented Pfizer machines that use nitrogen to protect the Resveratrol... oh, like the Pfizer CFS 1200 Capsule Filling and Sealing Machine. BUT... they still have to buy the powder for the formulation... so yes, they do buy the powder.

You are confused when I mentioned Wallmart. I hope to clarify... What I meant was that companies will buy from large pharmaceutical companies because they have tremendous buying power, over small companies. The smaller companies will likely buy from the large pharmaceutical because of trust, and price.

Suppliers around the world will work hard to meet the large pharmaceutical standards, and this in turn will help all of us.

I do want to see prices go down, I don't want them to stay high, and at the same time I want to make sure the Resveratrol purity is good. It prevents my company from producing new products that I believe will have a positive impact on our customers. If companies in China, Czechoslovakia, and India all want to sell to Pfizer (as they are a huge buyer) they need to make sure their product meets Pfizer's standards, period.

This benefits all buyers, as we have a better product, and can buy from multiple sources if quantities are low.

Regarding RevGenetics products. We buy Resveratrol from reputable suppliers from many places. The Resveratrol is HPLC tested, we have COA's, and no issues to buy from Pfizer either (in fact, we encourage folks to buy there very large quantities from them, as it will benefit the consumers). Our goal is to produce a quality product for the benefit of our customers. I have to tell you that we are proud to do that everyday. We will continue to provide customers with RevGenetics R500, the first 500mg capsule created for the general public, along with the introduction of some new products.

I understand you did not want to post your name, except in graphic form. I hope your AOL account where you posted the graphic stays around for a while so that people can benefit from knowing who the Journalist was, that posted some interesting things here. It really makes a positive impact when journalists visit, and ask questions.

Jack, I hope I have clarified my earlier post, and it helps the rest of the group here as well.

Thank you
Anthony Loera
RevGenetics

Edited by revgenetics, 22 February 2007 - 03:44 AM.

[maxwatt]

...As for stephend, I suggest ramping up you resveratrol dose; start at 1/4 or 1/8 of what you intend to eventually use.  This is especially the case with resveratrol from P. cuspidatum, due to the resveratrol content.  You might be able to get your dose up by adapting to the laxative effect of even the small amount claimed to be in Revgenetics; but starting at 1500 mg will probably be vvery uncomfortable.

I think you meant to type "emodin content" in the second sentence quoted above, no?

Yes.

Don't add quercetin to your resveratrol.  It isn't needed, and might be counterproductive.

Maxwatt, what about the fact that people supposedly consume 25-50mg of Quercetin in their food on a daily basis. Would it be wise to also avoid foods with Quercetin or is it too impractical?

And what happens if you double that? Or triple that? Rodents benefited from resveratrol, and not from resveratrol plus quercetin. Assumedly their lab diet included normal amounts of quercetin, not artificially suplemented amounts. If you have a choice between following a procedure that has worked, and folling another procedure that might work, or might be counterproductive, most people would choose the sure thing.

[jack868]

Hi Anthony,

Sorry -- evidently I was mistaken in thinking that you had made an error. Thanks for correcting mine in return! I see how your predictions could have important implications for the future quality of resveratrol products. Still, they don't seem to answer my questions about the quality of current products. Also, they still do not quite explain the strange test results, including tests from Sinclair, that appeared to show that mysteriously, one product towered above all others. I think this will remain an unsettling question mark for me, both now and in the future, unless someone finds a convincing explanation.

On the other hand, I could more easily dismiss those tets as wrong or irrelevant if I had satisfying and consistent reports from users that -- whatever the tests say -- other products are working for them, based on accepted and reasonable criteria. After all, the importance of those test results was based on the idea that they measured "biological activity," not just "content." If users consistently report that they're feeling the expected and desired effects from a product, then evidently -- to the extent those reports are believable -- we have biological activity.

Yes, the AOL account will stay up for a long time. I have had it for years and have no plans to discontinue it.

[steelheader]

jack868,

It's interesting how individuals are convinced by different kinds of evidence. I, for example, would find evidence of similar "content" more convincing than anecdotal accounts by users of different products.

[jack868]

Steelheader,

I would agree with you 100% -- normally. On the whole, I don't think anecdotal evidence should trump evidence of similar content. But, as the previous posts have discussed, in this case, there's yet a third type of evidence that has gotten in the way. So you might say I'm looking for two out of three. To put it another way, I'm looking for the anecdotal evidence as a sort of tiebreaker.

The "third type" to which I refer to is the lab tests that purport to assess biological activity, rather than content alone. These results of these tests have contradicted those of the content tests. Thus we have here a sort of "tie," or a contradiction that isn't easily reconciled. Thus my desire for a "tiebreaker," to put it somewhat simplistically.

[marqueemoon]

Jack,

You mentioned that after taking Longevinex you temporarily noticed fewer grey hairs. Can you elaborate on this? How dramatic was the effect, and how do you know you weren't just imagining it because of placebo, or it wasn't provoked by another change in your environment/lifestyle?

Thanks.

[markymark]

Hello,
I would like to add suggestions about lab tests, which might change in a positive direction under RESV. It might also be prudent to separate lab parameters, which only ensure that no toxicity is going on due to RESV from the real anti-aging parameters. The former are those you obtain by your GPs, e. g. Red-/white blood cells, GOT, GPT, Gamma-GT, BUN, creatinine, HDL-cholesterol, LDL, triglycerides.. They overlap with the "Anti-Aging parameters" like. fasting glucose, fasting insuline, Adiponectine, HbA1C, DHEAS, TSH (Thyroid), IGF-1 (growth hormone-marker), Testosterone,
The ideal person for looking at, say, before-and-after RESV lab changes would be: an overweight man in his end 40ies or older with high blood pressure and a metabolic syndrome. At the beginning without RESV he will likely display elevations in: fasting insulin/glucose, HbA1C, Triglycerides, LDL, (possibly) liver chemistry and at the same time low levels of DHEAS, low testosterone, adiponectine, HDL only to mention some.
If RESV will do the trick, the individual will go through the same phenomena (reduced apetite and- desire for ethanol, better sleep, catch up exercising ....) Then he likely will lose weight over time and the bad lab values will change towards the better, i. e elevated fasting insulin, glucose, triglycerides will drop in parallel with the reduction of waist circumference. Adiponectin, DHEAS and testosterone will rise as will the overall condition
The key question is whether these beneficial changes would also occur without weight loss under RESV. This would then be a reproduction of the results of sinclair's mouse study in humans.
For you out there being healthy and who practice healthy life styles it will be difficult do track effects via blood lab work.
However, there is one way.... being an MD, Internist I would like to visit you all respectively for performing liver biopsies and check for gene expression analyses and molecular pathway analyses which will make me famous and having me a paper in Nature or Science ;-)))), OK this was a joke.
I really appreciate to share your thoughts so far. The discussion about lab-work prompted me to join in.
Regs.
MarkyMark 42 y. male

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi Anthony,
Still, they don't seem to answer my questions about the quality of current products. Also, they still do not quite explain the strange test results, including tests from Sinclair, that appeared to show that mysteriously, one product towered above all others. I think this will remain an unsettling question mark for me, both now and in the future, unless someone finds a convincing explanation.

On the other hand, I could more easily dismiss those tets as wrong or irrelevant if I had satisfying and consistent reports from users that -- whatever the tests say -- other products are working for them, based on accepted and reasonable criteria. After all, the importance of those test results was based on the idea that they measured "biological activity," not just "content."

Hi Jack,

I think I have answered the quality questions on previous posts to various folks. My company was not around in the early 2000's during the original testing of products. Because our product was not around then, doesn't mean RevGenetics resveratrol products are not currently HPLC tested to check for Resveratrol purity, the product is tested. We also provide a much higher dose of trans-resveratrol than any of the other commercial products in the early products Sinclair tested, and you can quote me on that.

Niner,

I have finally spoken to Orchid, the reps name is Satish. After exchanging information, he explained to me that the 'synthetic' resveratrol is only for R&D purposes at this time. Because of 2 major companies having applied to the FDA as an investigational drug, they are hoping the FDA will classify it as a new drug. They want to be very careful that only research personnel are provided the 'synthetic' version, as they do not want the FDA to find any fault during this period, that may cause issues with Orchid.

He then told me a story of a person buying a batch from Orchid a couple months back, stating it would only be used for research, signing and agreeing to that the 'synthetic' resveratrol would only be used in that manner. Afterwords, the buyer was found selling it on the internet to a large group of people for a high profit, the person blatantly bought the 'synthetic' version and sold it to people before any human trials of the 'synthetic' version.

Does this sound familiar niner?

Now, he did mention that the product is available for R&D purposes only, and that they will (understandably) scrutinize companies who request it. He mentioned that because this was a 'synthetic' version of something found naturally, that some pharmaceuticals are very interested in it.

I believe any new orders that Paul takes, will likley come from a natural form of resveratrol, and not an Orchid 'synthetic' version. It will likley come from the same companies I buy resveratrol from, and provide it to you all at 'retail' so that he can make a profit. There is nothing wrong about that, my company like all others who are in business do the same. But I believe it needs to be cleared up, as some have emailed me to say I should buy a large batch from him because he can get it from 'Orchid'.

That is highly unlikely. Also if he had a batch sitting around from Orchid, I would not have my customers take 'synthetic' resveratrol until it has been proven safe for humans. I prefer to buy quality tested reveratrol from natural sources.

For those who bought the synthetic version from Paul, I hope you are doing well, and I would ask you to consider a natural version... at least until the synthetic stuff has been proven safe. You can always try RevGenetics, or other brands of your choice.

Thank you
Anthony Loera
RevGenetics

[tom a]

Anthony,

I can't even begin to understand your argument against synthetic resveratrol.

Look, pure resveratrol is pure resveratrol -- it's a chemical. It's ultimate source is irrelevant, whether it be synthetic or natural.

What on earth are you trying to argue here?

[tom a]

jack868,

I do think that your suggestion for people to try to describe their regimens, product name included, as well as what they've observed about their own health, is a very positive thing all around.

I personally am a bit skeptical that much could be inferred about which products are most effective on this basis -- but who knows? In any case, even if the products seem mostly indistinguishable on the evidence, it will give us all considerably more information about resveratrol than we now have.

What's certainly true is that the more data, the better. We can each draw our own inferences as we see fit. I'd expect there'd be a lot of discussion about what it all means.

[Anthony_Loera]

It is not pure according to Satesh.
But you are correct, if it is pure, I have no argument, and will agree with you. Do you have the COA from Paul that I can look at?

[tom a]

Anthony,

I certainly have no access to Paul's COA -- I haven't (yet) even decided to participate in his bulk purchase.

But my impression is that the stuff is 99%+ pure. I have no idea what any remaining impurities might be, but they'd have to be remarkably potent to have any important effects given their scarcity in the product.

And, while it may (or may not) have been used in human trials (although I wonder what the source was for the human toxicity study of resveratrol --of which there was at least one), it is the very product used in the mice studies, only to positive effect, apparently.

[Anthony_Loera]

tom a,

thanks for the reply. I wanted to compare it against the information I will get this evening from Orchid.
Tom, you sure Paul's stuff is 99% pure? From my conversation this morning' with Orchid, I have my doubts he will be able to get it, or even worse, sell you something at a much lower quality and pass it off as Orchid RSV.

Just letting you know to be careful...

Thanks again,
Anthony Loera
RevGenetics

[tom a]

Anthony,

Honestly, if I have a concern, it's about the NATURAL resveratrol products, precisely because of its indisputable impurities. If a product is 50% resveratrol, then 50% is something else. THAT is a lot of impurities. Most notoriously, emodin is present, and emodin may, for all we know, counteract the effects of resveratrol. At minimum, it causes GI problems.

I very much believe that the next step up for resveratrol vendors must be to go to a higher purity resveratrol -- the higher the better. And, obviously, price remains an issue for the consumer.

Who's going to step up and do this?

[tom a]

Tom, you sure Paul's stuff is 99% pure?

Nope, but my recollection is that it's been asserted that it's in that neighborhood.

It does have a pedigree that suggests it would be of such quality. It's been used by scientists who would know exactly what they are getting.

Honestly, though, I don't see it as a serious competitor anyway for resveratrol vendors. Orchid obviously needs to look as chaste as Caesar's wife, and must avoid ventures that look as if they are going to be cycled into unmonitored human use. I have no problem with what Paul's doing, and indeed am contemplating participating, but taken all together the number of participants will be miniscule in the larger world.

My hope, though, is that resveratrol vendors start insisting on much higher purity resveratrol in their products. That is by far the best long term solution.

[tom a]

Just to make my point a little more concrete, if I had access to a resveratrol product that was, say, 95% pure and from natural sources, and that product were at a good price, I'd jump on it.

I imagine a lot of people on this board would.

[Anthony_Loera]

tom a,

I believe RevGenetics currently offers the best price for encapsulated Resveratrol. No one is disputing the price point, and the purity level increases the price point dramatically.

I will gladly offer 98% Resveratrol Capsules, if I find a market that will pay $260 or more for a bottle. Actually, how do you all feel about 98% for a bottle of 60 capsules (480mg or 490mg RSV per capsule), at a price point of $130?

Let me know, I think this might be feasible.... but have to get the ok from my partners first.

[tom a]

Actually, how do you all feel about 98% for a bottle of 60 capsules (480mg or 490mg RSV per capsule), at a price point of $130?

That's a little steep, but it does compare favorably even with how much it would cost via Paul's venture, at the lowest end of participation (namely, $400 for 100gms, or $4 per gram). Your price point would put the price per gram at about $4.45. Given that it would be encapsulated, that would be well worth the small additional expense.

If it could be verified that it was indeed 98% pure, I'd think it would be a VERY attractive product.

[edbear]

I'd actually hold off since I wouldn't want 500 mg in a single capsule - I'm skeptical about taking that much at once and prefer to spread it out over the day in smaller doses (rapid metabolization and all).

The price point is also a tad steep - make it $100 for a two-month supply in smaller doses and I'd be sold.

[tom a]

I think edbear is right -- it would definitely be a more attractive product at the same price per gram if it could come in capsules of a smaller amount.

[Anthony_Loera]

I am sure I can present the COA to the average user as proof, but most of the folks here really want something more...

So let me point our some differences between someone like Paul and RevGenetics, that may also benefit you and provide peace of mind...

We are legally allowed to do business in the state of Florida, have an association with NPA, and are in the process to enter our products into the NPA's 'Trulabel' program which does random product testing to verify what is in our products, if tested and we are found to fail, we stop selling the product.

There has been alot of talk about quality on this board, and again I say, that our products are quality products.

so tom, I would say that these items above make our current products very attractive, as well.

thank you
Anthony Loera
RevGenetics

[tintinet]

jack868,... Regarding RevGenetics products. We buy Resveratrol from reputable suppliers from many places. The Resveratrol is HPLC tested, we have COA's, and no issues to buy from Pfizer either (in fact, we encourage folks to buy there very large quantities from them, as it will benefit the consumers). Our goal is to produce a quality product for the benefit of our customers. I have to tell you that we are proud to do that everyday. We will continue to provide customers with RevGenetics R500, the first 500mg capsule created for the general public, along with the introduction of some new products....


Thank you
Anthony Loera
RevGenetics

Anthony-

Thanks for your informative posting here.

Would you provide copies of your COAs to us here or to potential R500 purchasers?

What are Revgenetics standards for contaminants including mercury, lead, asenic, etc. in resveratrol extracts?

Thanks!

[Anthony_Loera]

No problem,

Send me an email to anthony @ revgenetics.com with this request, and I will personally send you a copy for our latest batch.

I believe all contaminants are well below range of the US water EPA standards, and or provided in the COA in PPM. So you may have more contaminants in the water you drink than in our product.

What are the water EPA standards you ask? see here
http://www.epa.gov/s...dex.html#d_dbps

[tom a]

anthony,

I have no particular reason to doubt that your product is pretty much what it is advertised to be, as far as content goes.

As I said, the thing that would make it more attractive to me is higher purity at a reasonable price.

[malbecman]

I agree with EdBear,

Make it 250mg 98% trans-resveratrol capsules, 120 caps (~2 months supply at 500 mg/day) for <$100 and I'd be sold.... [thumb]

Edited by malbecman, 22 February 2007 - 08:57 PM.

[eternaltraveler]

http://www.methusela...hread.php?t=123

[eternaltraveler]

also http://www.imminst.o...=0

[tom a]

elrond,

I looked at the link you gave, and was pretty unimpressed with the argument.

In truth, I've got to wonder if this guy Michael R is really capable emotionally of giving any real credit to a concrete CR-mimetic (as opposed to hypothetical, but non-existent CR-mimetics), given his fanatic devotion to CR itself. The notion that someone might actually be able to achieve real results without the ascetic life style he has chosen to lead must be a really hard pill to swallow, so to speak.

Look, it's certainly true that no one knows whether or how resveratrol will translate from mice results to human results. But to act as if the mice results are not themselves very impressive in their own right is simply mindless -- as is the focus on the differing results of different tyypes of yeast cells.

Whatever Michael R may think, it is simply remarkable that mice who are 60% heavier than normal mice can live as long as the normals, and are as physically adept as them. It's simply remarkable that the mice in the Auwerx study were able to last twice as long on endurance tests, and had such amazingly different profiles in their tissues, when looked at under the microscope. Only the blindest of ideologues could pretend that that is not significant.

What will all of this translate into for human beings? Longer life? Longer healthspans? Better physical and mental capabilities in older or even younger ages? In truth, no one knows. But it's hard to see any of it as being anything but very good. And, again, only the blindest of ideologues could pretend otherwise.

[edbear]

Thanks for the link elrond - although I pretty much agree with what tom a says, this is still the first really negative critical breakdown of the resv issue I've seen, and I believe it is a valuable set of arguments to think about. I look forward to doing so when I have a bit of free time.

Nobody can pretend they aren't rolling the dice with resv right now, and I think a concerted effort to chip away at any bad assumptions or inferences that we might be working with is very important.

[eternaltraveler]

In truth, I've got to wonder if this guy Michael R is really capable emotionally of giving any real credit to a concrete CR-mimetic (as opposed to hypothetical, but non-existent CR-mimetics), given his fanatic devotion to CR itself. The notion that someone might actually be able to achieve real results without the ascetic life style he has chosen to lead must be a really hard pill to swallow, so to speak.

would you care to give a point by point breakdown explaining exactly how Michael's reasoning is flawed rather than blanket dismissing it because he practices CR?

Which is a straw man if I have ever seen one.