1708 replies to this topic

[geddarkstorm]

elphaba

This might be an idea: perhaps the increased foot pain is because resveratrol is helping to reactive your nerves. There are studies that show it helps to protect and potentially stimulate nerve growth. If your peripheral nerves are all shot, and then something comes along to help get them going again, pain would be expected as that's a natural sign of nerve regrowth/restimulation until it is complete. Just a random idea anyways.

[hmm]

elphaba

This might be an idea: perhaps the increased foot pain is because resveratrol is helping to reactive your nerves. There are studies that show it helps to protect and potentially stimulate nerve growth. If your peripheral nerves are all shot, and then something comes along to help get them going again, pain would be expected as that's a natural sign of nerve regrowth/restimulation until it is complete. Just a random idea anyways.

There is a lady named "ET" who has been experiencing a lot of pain which she is inclined to attribute to rsv. She seems to be at her wits' end as far as how to make it better. I am wondering if her best solution might be for her to purchase some good quality 99% pure powder and take a couple of grams a day for a few weeks and see if that actually improves her condition in the end rather than worsening it. I wouldn't suggest something like this except that her present condition has left her feeling pretty desperate for relief...

[Benedictus]

Anthony, i have intelligent doctors overseas that I speak to. Why would I waist my time on dim-whits that can't help me and those who don't even know what Resveratrol is?

That's funny, I live 'overseas' and my general practitioner recommends taking no more than 5 milligrams of 99% pure resveratrol per kilogram bodyweight per day. So in my case that's 5 x 70 = 350 mg of revgenetics (Polygonum Cuspidatum) powder each day. He showed me a reliable published study about it (in print), and I trusted him and this study. I started taking resveratrol because I don't drink any red wine, ever. It clearly has had amazing effects on my general health, and I'm pretty sure it is the resveratrol.

Recently, by her own request, I served my girlfriend a full teaspoon (almost 1 gram) of resveratrol mixed in a glass of orange-juice, and she told me she felt her heart skip beats and felt pretty bad right after it. We concluded it was the high dosage that was at fault. It is important to know that there's a true maximum of this substance you should intake per day, my 'doctor' told me this as well. My girlfriend just was a bit daring and immediately found out about its adverse results, which can be quite dangerous for sensitive folk.

By the way, I can highly recommend this website: http://resveratrolnews.com/

Edited by Benedictus, 01 December 2008 - 02:05 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

Just an FYI,

the study reported in the website you mention has resveratrol dose with alcohol given to rats. Resveratrol is dissolved in alcohol, and you can't compare 5mg/kg of alcohol dissolved resveratrol with 5mg/kg of dry powder resveratrol.
Again the study suggests a dose dependent benefit. It appears that this study suggests a low dose for heart protection for a rat when you induce a heart attack (5mg/kg dissolved in alcohol), while a high dose is beneficial for cancer in a rat (25mg/kg - 50mg/kg dissolved in alcohol).

It's funny how those rats have the best docs, but when it comes to humans no one knows what the exact dose maybe. Having said that, I have to side with niner with his estimate of a 1.3 rat to human dose ratio he mentions here:
http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry249885

Again, no one knows if this will work in the same way in humans, even if the dose is a bit more accurate by using the 1.3 ratio that niner has suggested.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 01 December 2008 - 04:41 PM.

[geddarkstorm]

Anthony,

This paper http://www.fasebj.or...stract/22/3/659 suggests the use of body surface area (BSA) in converting dose from animals to humans rather than body weight and the like, and, ironically enough, mentions resveratrol. There might be something useful in there in figuring out what dosage to use in a more precise way(?), and then adjust verses differences in formula based uptake?

EDIT: I found this on the FDA's site http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/dose.htm . Look at table 1. It recommends dividing any dose given to mice in mg/kg by 12.3 for the mg/kg to give humans for the same effect range, and divide 6.2 from rats to humans.

Edited by geddarkstorm, 01 December 2008 - 10:38 PM.

[Benedictus]

Just an FYI,

the study reported in the website you mention has resveratrol dose with alcohol given to rats. Resveratrol is dissolved in alcohol, and you can't compare 5mg/kg of alcohol dissolved resveratrol with 5mg/kg of dry powder resveratrol.
Again the study suggests a dose dependent benefit. It appears that this study suggests a low dose for heart protection for a rat when you induce a heart attack (5mg/kg dissolved in alcohol), while a high dose is beneficial for cancer in a rat (25mg/kg - 50mg/kg dissolved in alcohol).

It's funny how those rats have the best docs, but when it comes to humans no one knows what the exact dose maybe. Having said that, I have to side with niner with his estimate of a 1.3 rat to human dose ratio he mentions here:
http://www.imminst.o...mp;#entry249885

Again, no one knows if this will work in the same way in humans, even if the dose is a bit more accurate by using the 1.3 ratio that niner has suggested.

By now I've read the full PDF of this link (through my work I luckily have access to them):
http://www.sciencedi...61b967110fe9fa5

In the article I was also surprized to find

The amount of resveratrol found in natural foods

Source Resveratrol concentration

100% Natural peanut butter ∼0.65 μg/g
Bilberries ∼16 ng/g
Blueberries ∼32 ng/g
Boiled peanuts ∼5.1 μg/g
Cranberry raw juice ∼0.2 mg/L
Dry grape skin ∼24.06 μg/g
Grapes 0.16–3.54 μg/g
Peanut butter 0.3–1.4 μg/g
Peanuts 0.02–1.92 μg/g
Pistachios 0.09–1.67 μg/g
Ports and sherries b0.1 mg/L
Ref grape juice ∼0.50 mg/L
Red wines 0.1–14.3 mg/L
Roasted peanuts ∼0.055 μg/g
White grape juice ∼0.05 mg/L
White wines b0.1–2.1 mg/L

[Anthony_Loera]

Anthony,

This paper http://www.fasebj.or...stract/22/3/659 suggests the use of body surface area (BSA) in converting dose from animals to humans rather than body weight and the like, and, ironically enough, mentions resveratrol. There might be something useful in there in figuring out what dosage to use in a more precise way(?), and then adjust verses differences in formula based uptake?

EDIT: I found this on the FDA's site http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/dose.htm . Look at table 1. It recommends dividing any dose given to mice in mg/kg by 12.3 for the mg/kg to give humans for the same effect range, and divide 6.2 from rats to humans.

This has been discussed before.

The FDA suggestion is for a conservative estimate if you do not have human plasma data regarding a drug.
If you already have plasma data in humans, then it will trump the calculated starting estimates.

As For the BSA method, here is a quote from the study you mention:

Some drugs are administered to patients based on
estimations for desired plasma concentrations using
available pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics
data.

After this quote they go on to state that BSA role could help calculate cytotoxic drugs for children based on a Du Bois height-weight formula. but then states that the formula has been challenged and re-evaluated, which appears to make this less accurate than it appears from the abstract.

Again, we are talking about calculation of a starting estimate if we did not have plasma data...

The unfortunate side effect of this strategy is that unpredictable
variations in effect are observed because BSA
dosing does not take into account the complex process
of drug elimination (19). Thus, overdosing can occur
and is easily recognized, but underdosing can be just as
frequent and leads to a reduced therapeutic result (19).
Many researchers advocate abandoning this approach
in favor of the administration of fixed drug doses that
are calculated on the basis of an average 1.86 m2 BSA,
as calculated by one study (20).

Dose refinement then would reflect the desired therapeutic outcome for individual patients with the added benefit of reducing errors in calculations and possibly reducing costs as well.

The great part about resveratrol is that we do have human plasma data, so all that maybe needed is to have a drug company do a bit of "dose refinement" in a clinical trial.

Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 02 December 2008 - 01:55 AM.

[geddarkstorm]

Very cool. I was just a bit interested since that thread sounded so speculative.

[The Fixer]

This is my first post about my 500mg daily regimen. During this trial I have only used Megaresveratrol 99% capsules.

My first daily routine ran from January to April 2008 and was at 1000 mg daily. I experienced strong feelings of anxiety almost daily after dosing 1000 mg. I quit in April and the symptoms immediately ceased.

On November 27th 2008 I resumed dosing daily only 500 mg. This time I feel great. The feeling is energetic and quite strong without inducing anxiety. It is more a physical energy than that produced by caffeine.

I have concluded that 1000 mg daily was too energetic and that 500 mg is the right dose for me.

I am not taking blood lipid tests at this time.

[unglued]

I haven't posted anything in 2008 at all, so here's an update. Compare these to my earlier stats.

• My VO2 Max, as measured on the same three StarTrac machines in my health club, have gone from what I called "absurdly high" pre-resveratrol to what Velopismo called "astonishingly high" to a present level of "this can't be right". I measure it several times a week and it rarely comes out below 70, often is in the 90's, and occasionally is over 120. This is a walking test at 3.4 mph, 0 to 11 degree inclines (or is it 1 to 12?) increasing one degree per minute. No question that the median value has increased a lot in the last two years. (I haven't kept everything else constant, of course. For example, I've been taking 230mg of CoQ10 and may have taken less before, and I'm also taking more B12.)
• I visited another health club and tried a Free Motion treadmill that uses the Gerkin test, which increases speed and incline and then stops abruptly. I tried it today and yesterday, and got readings of 51.x and 50.0, which is back down to the "absurdly high" level; it means "90th percentile for a 30-year-old man" and I'm a 48-year-old man. However, I've read that the Gerkin protocol is defined as "continue until you've reached the point of exhaustion", and according to the manual, the machine implements this as "when your heart rate stays greater than 85% of your age-predicted maximum heart rate for 15 seconds, or when the program reaches 11 minutes." It stopped before I felt I had reached the point of exhaustion or had even worked up a good sweat. Maybe it was 11 minutes, or maybe the machine decided I must be exhausted given my age, and then reported a score that would be pretty good for a 20-year-old. Next time I'll try lying about my age. I think there are two alternative tests on this model that I overlooked, so if I get a chance I'll try those too.
• I reduced by intake to 2.5/mg/kg for the last five months or so, based on not-too-closely-followed new research results suggesting high doses may not be necessary, and also because I was concerned about the effect on folic acid uptake that was found by a paper Longevinex cited. (Now I see there's also a wa whole topic hereabout it.) My homocysteine was somewhat high (13.2) considering that I eat my spinach and take B supplements. I started taking mega supplements of folic acid, reduced my resveratrol dosage, and started taking the two several hours apart. My homocysteine decreased to 12.1, then 11.7, then 10.3, but I don't know which of those three changes was responsible -- my guess is the separation, since the last measurement was after I reduced my dosage of folic acid to under 1000 mg. I'm thinking of increasing my resveratrol dosage again now that my homocysteine is under control.
• In the last six months I've occasionally noticed soreness in one knee while casually running or biking -- just enough to discourage me from going faster. I've had problems on and off with this knee for 20 years, so it may be unrelated, but this is more like a very minor chronic problem than the more severe acute problem I've had in the past. Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex with MSM seems to help.
• I've had my cholesterol measured several more times, and I don't see any trend.

[maxwatt]

I haven't posted anything in 2008 at all, so here's an update. Compare these to my earlier stats.

• My VO2 Max, as measured on the same three StarTrac machines in my health club, have gone from what I called "absurdly high" pre-resveratrol to what Velopismo called "astonishingly high" to a present level of "this can't be right". I measure it several times a week and it rarely comes out below 70, often is in the 90's, and occasionally is over 120. This is a walking test at 3.4 mph, 0 to 11 degree inclines (or is it 1 to 12?) increasing one degree per minute. No question that the median value has increased a lot in the last two years. (I haven't kept everything else constant, of course. For example, I've been taking 230mg of CoQ10 and may have taken less before, and I'm also taking more B12.)
• I visited another health club and tried a Free Motion treadmill that uses the Gerkin test, which increases speed and incline and then stops abruptly. I tried it today and yesterday, and got readings of 51.x and 50.0, which is back down to the "absurdly high" level; it means "90th percentile for a 30-year-old man" and I'm a 48-year-old man. However, I've read that the Gerkin protocol is defined as "continue until you've reached the point of exhaustion", and according to the manual, the machine implements this as "when your heart rate stays greater than 85% of your age-predicted maximum heart rate for 15 seconds, or when the program reaches 11 minutes." It stopped before I felt I had reached the point of exhaustion or had even worked up a good sweat. Maybe it was 11 minutes, or maybe the machine decided I must be exhausted given my age, and then reported a score that would be pretty good for a 20-year-old. Next time I'll try lying about my age. I think there are two alternative tests on this model that I overlooked, so if I get a chance I'll try those too.
• I reduced by intake to 2.5/mg/kg for the last five months or so, based on not-too-closely-followed new research results suggesting high doses may not be necessary, and also because I was concerned about the effect on folic acid uptake that was found by a paper Longevinex cited. (Now I see there's also a wa whole topic hereabout it.) My homocysteine was somewhat high (13.2) considering that I eat my spinach and take B supplements. I started taking mega supplements of folic acid, reduced my resveratrol dosage, and started taking the two several hours apart. My homocysteine decreased to 12.1, then 11.7, then 10.3, but I don't know which of those three changes was responsible -- my guess is the separation, since the last measurement was after I reduced my dosage of folic acid to under 1000 mg. I'm thinking of increasing my resveratrol dosage again now that my homocysteine is under control.
• In the last six months I've occasionally noticed soreness in one knee while casually running or biking -- just enough to discourage me from going faster. I've had problems on and off with this knee for 20 years, so it may be unrelated, but this is more like a very minor chronic problem than the more severe acute problem I've had in the past. Glucosamine Chondroitin Complex with MSM seems to help.
• I've had my cholesterol measured several more times, and I don't see any trend.

The machine tests are useful for relative measurement, but aren't accurate. Heart rate varies quite a bit from the formulas that give maximum by age, and if you have been engaging in vigorous aerobic activity continuously, heart rate scarcely declines with age, not at all what a formula would predict. You can lie about your age, say you're 18, and see what kind of result you get.

It would be nice to know if your higher-than-expected aerobic capacity continues with a lower dose of resveratrol, or returns to baseline numbers.

Homocysteine has been shown be lowered by resveratrol in most studies. One study PMID: 19028542 found an increase in genetically abnormal hyperhomocysteinemic mice. It is possible for a human to share that defect.

I have come to suspect that continuous high dose resveratrol, though contributing to aerobic capacity and other good things, may delay healing in tissue poorly supplied with blood, such as tendons, joints and cartilage. If high serum levels are needed for many of resveratrol's beneficial effects, this is a dilemma of sorts. Since resveratrol does activate certain genes, and they continue to be expressed for a time even when serum levels drop, it is possible that intermittent high levels would give the benefits, while allowing healing to occur. Periodic breaks from supplementation would be desirable.

Cholesterol levels in humans do not seem to be affected by resveratrol alone. My own declined slightly, with a 30% increase in HDL. This could have been due to other factors than resveratrol.

Edited by maxwatt, 28 December 2008 - 03:54 PM.

[unglued]

Thanks for your typically thoughtful response, maxwatt.

The machine tests are useful for relative measurement, but aren't accurate.

That's why it's interesting that my relative measure increased so consistently over the past year or two under various doses of resveratrol, measured several times a week. This test seems like one of the two tests I can take for free that mirror the rodent results. The other, more relevant test, is to wait several decades and see if I lived longer than expected. I'm interested in the results of that one too, but plan to confound the results in all sorts of ways in the coming decades.

Heart rate varies quite a bit from the formulas that give maximum by age, and if you have been engaging in vigorous aerobic activity continuously, heart rate scarcely declines with age, not at all what a formula would predict.

I hope not, because the usual formula predicts that when I reach the age of 220 years, my maximum heart rate will be 0.

You can lie about your age, say you're 18, and see what kind of result you get.

Unfortunately, it's not quite that simple with this machine. If only the "stop" button meant "I'm exhausted, which is the definition of where you should terminate the Gerkin test and give me my result." Instead, it means "Emergency stop, abort the test and don't calculate anything." (I tried it once when I felt I must be nearing my max.) If I enter my actual age, it stops at 146 or so, whereas 150 is just when I start feeling good and before I break a sweat. From experience on elliptical machines I know that I can do 150 for 20 minutes or more very comfortably and 157 is where I really feel like I shouldn't go much further. So saying I'm 35 seems to be the lie that gets it to stop at a reasonable "point of exhaustion" -- I think it's using 85% of 220-age. My result with that lie was that it stopped at 6 degrees and 6 mph (9.65 kph) and reported a VO2 Max of 57.7.

It would be nice to know if your higher-than-expected aerobic capacity continues with a lower dose of resveratrol, or returns to baseline numbers.

I'm not planning to try that experiment, so I'm afraid you'll have to be content with the data I reported: I started out very high on the 3.4 mph (5.5 kph) test -- a test that approximates the kind of walking I've done most of my life -- and went to ridiculously high, and I've now done a sanity check with a Gerkins test that consistently shows a VO2 Max that is much lower but still exceedingly high. I don't know if I'll join the health club that has this machine, so I can only provide this number as a sort of calibration of the other one, not as a before or after.

Homocysteine has been shown be lowered by resveratrol in most studies. One study PMID: 19028542 found an increase in genetically abnormal hyperhomocysteinemic mice. It is possible for a human to share that defect.

Is the human SNP for that defect known? As it happens, I recently purchased 23andme.com's geneotyping service, so by late February I may be able to find out if I have that defect. So I'd be very interested.

Cholesterol levels in humans do not seem to be affected by resveratrol alone. My own declined slightly, with a 30% increase in HDL. This could have been due to other factors than resveratrol.

Here are my cholesterol results. I weigh just under 80kg and I started taking 100mg resveratrol in 12/06, was up to 400mg by 6/07, decreased to 300mg last summer, maybe 6/08.

mm/dd/yy	Total	HDL
8/4/06	126	44
5/14/07	123	44
9/7/07	129	40
11/5/07	146	48
11/16/07	160	49
4/21/08	152	43
9/15/08	133	N/A
11/18/08	139	37

Edited by unglued, 29 December 2008 - 04:53 AM.

[maxwatt]

. . .

Homocysteine has been shown be lowered by resveratrol in most studies. One study PMID: 19028542 found an increase in genetically abnormal hyperhomocysteinemic mice. It is possible for a human to share that defect.

Is the human SNP for that defect known? As it happens, I recently purchased 23andme.com's geneotyping service, so by late February I may be able to find out if I have that defect. So I'd be <b style="color:red">very</b> interested.

the 23andme people should be able to tell you or you could contact one of the authors in the study below, but I think if your homocysteine levels are not elevated, you don't have such a gene.

1: FASEB J. 2008 Dec;22(12):4071-6. Epub 2008 Aug 15.
Mutations in cystathionine beta-synthase or methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene increase N-homocysteinylated protein levels in humans.
Jakubowski H, Boers GH, Strauss KA.

Department of Microbiology & Molecular Genetics, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, International Center for Public Health, 225 Warren St., Newark, NJ 07101-1709, USA. jakubows @ umdnj.edu

Severely elevated plasma homocysteine (Hcy) levels observed in genetic disorders of Hcy metabolism are associated with pathologies in multiple organs and lead to premature death due to vascular complications. In addition to elevating plasma Hcy, mutations in cystathionine beta-synthase (CBS) or methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene lead to markedly elevated levels of circulating Hcy-thiolactone. The thiooester chemistry of Hcy-thiolactone underlies its ability to form isopeptide bonds with protein lysine residues (N-Hcy-protein), which may impair or alter the protein's function. However, it was not known whether genetic deficiencies in Hcy metabolism affect N-Hcy-protein levels in humans. Here we show that plasma N-Hcy-protein levels are significantly elevated in CBS- and MTHFR-deficient patients. We also show that CBS-deficient patients have significantly elevated plasma levels of prothrombotic N-Hcy-fibrinogen. These results provide a possible explanation for increased atherothrombosis observed in CBS-deficient patients.

PMID: 18708589

[unglued]

The machine tests are useful for relative measurement, but aren't accurate.

You're right about this latest one I tried not being accurate. Found this conclusion in a paper abstract: The Gerkin treadmill protocol overpredicts VO2max in healthy men and women...

Apparently it overpredicts it by less than the treadmill test I've been taking for the past couple of years. I guess the main question of interest to this thread is whether the one I've been taking for the past couple of years is useful for relative measurement.

Addendum to the dosages above my cholesterol results table above (#1512): Should read:

I weigh just under 80kg and I started taking 100mg resveratrol in 12/06, was up to 400mg by 6/07, then 900 to 1400 mg by 7/07, then decreased to 300mg last summer, maybe 6/08.

So my HDL actually dropped after a few months at my highest dose, but later rose to the highest level I've ever had (along with a rise in total cholesterol). HDL started decreasing while I was still taking at least 900mg. That's why I summarized it as "I don't see any trend."

[davidd]

unglued,

This is great VO2 max data. Thanks for sharing. I'm on my own, similar quest to determine the effect of supplementation on VO2 max.

I've done some thinking about testing methods and conducted some preliminary tests as well. I'd be happy to share what I have now, although I won't have the true "results" for a few more months.

Are you interested in knowing your true VO2 max, or are you satisfied with relative changes in VO2 max as a result of supplement regimen changes?

David

Edited by davidd, 30 December 2008 - 10:33 PM.

[davidd]

I saw a show on the Science channel last night, called NextWorld. I think it is a mini-series type of thing. Anyway, I was surprised when part way through the show, they had a few minutes discussing resveratrol, with a few words from David Sinclair and his partner, as well as some brief words from Aubrey de Grey on SENS, The Methuselah Foundation, and the Mprize. Hardly mainstream, but it was still nice to see it getting some air time.

Here is the show schedule for this week if anyone is interested: http://science.disco...1.25642.34394.4

David

[unglued]

davidd --

My relative improvement in VO_{2 max} is the thing that seemed relevant to this Topic. Personally, I'm interested in both.

I'm interested in the relative improvement for the practical purpose of using it to guess whether a given dose of resveratrol is improving my longevity, on the theory that whatever improves the performance (mitochondria maybe) is what also improves longevity.

I'm personally interested in the absolute value, for various reasons. Among other things, it would be emotionally satisfying to know I've been on the right track; I'm sure you agree it feels good to be told you have a heart as healthy as a 20-year-old's.

Cause you can't jump the tracks; we're like cars on a cable.

[davidd]

davidd --

My relative improvement in VO_{2 max} is the thing that seemed relevant to this Topic. Personally, I'm interested in both.

I'm interested in the relative improvement for the practical purpose of using it to guess whether a given dose of resveratrol is improving my longevity, on the theory that whatever improves the performance (mitochondria maybe) is what also improves longevity.

I'm personally interested in the absolute value, for various reasons. Among other things, it would be emotionally satisfying to know I've been on the right track; I'm sure you agree it feels good to be told you have a heart as healthy as a 20-year-old's.

Cause you can't jump the tracks; we're like cars on a cable.

unglued,

I can relate to both those desires as well. Of course, for you to be told you have a heart as healthy as a 20 year old is much better than for me to be told that, as I'm about 10 years younger! The fact that I don't exercise much probably didn't help me there.

The reason I asked is because my tests are not, I don't believe, going to be accurate for everyone. In my case, I don't think they show the true VO2 max for a few reasons. One is that my heart rate is always a bit higher than typical (at rest anyway) and heart rate is one of the variables in the equation used. Of course, even with more elaborate test (Bruce Protocol stress test), I think I skew that one by going longer after getting into the anaerobic mode than the typical person would. And a "real" test that actually measures the oxygen consumed is not something I want to pay for every time I want to test this, let alone the hassle of going to a facility to do it.

Anyway, here is what I first planned to do. I have a treadmill at home and I planned to implement the Bruce Protocol stress test myself. I found out quickly that the model I have does not incline enough to perform that test. This was actually a blessing in disguise, because A) I was a little worried about the risk of pushing myself to exhaustion without a doctor around and B) I figured I'd need a lot of recovery time in-between to not skew the subsequent test results, given that this is a maximal test.

So, given that I didn't want to buy another treadmill, I set out to find out what I could do with what I had. I figured I'd need a heart rate monitor, regardless, so I researched and came up with the Polar F11 (http://www.hdosport....tips.php?id=113). It was relatively reasonably priced (got it on ebay for about $100) and it had a VO2 max feature. I was leery of the accuracy of the feature, but figured I'd try it out just the same.

As I suspected, the VO2 max feature rated me very poorly, because of my resting heart rate being higher than most people. But, with the heart rate monitor and with my treadmill, I was able to implement this sub-maximal VO2 max test from Brigham Young University. That website I referenced has a lot of other tests and good information on it, by the way.

This test, as I stated, is a sub-maximal test. Basically, you jog for a mile at a given rate (not to exceed a total average of 8 minutes per mile) and plug your final heart rate, duration and weight to an equation (different equation for men and women). This does still rely on heart rate, but I think it is closer to a true measure (for me) than the "lay on the floor for 5 minutes" test that the heart rate monitor test has you do. And more importantly, I think it provides a *consistent* way to test and spot trends. I think I've done this 4 or 5 times so far over a few months and it has been within about 1% each time. The only thing that skewed it was the very first time I did it, because I did it after testing my treadmill at maximum incline and maximum speed to see how my heart rate increased with the monitor and then did the 1 mile jog test about an hour later. My poor mitochondria were understandably tired in this situation, thus my heart rate was higher at the end of the jog test. I also have avoided doing the test if I have been doing anything strenuous the days prior, so as to not skew the test.

Now the true protocol is to do this on a flat track and field track. By doing it on a treadmill, that is already deviating from the protocol. There is a slight incline on my treadmill by default anyway, but on the other hand, I don't have wind resistance. Those two things could skew the test one way or the other, depending on which one is more dominant. Two huge benefits, from a consistency standpoint, however, are the lack of wind resistance (which might be variable on an outdoor track) and the consistent speed during the test. To the latter point, I have finished the test in the same exact duration, except for one run where I was off by a second.

Getting into the details a bit more... With the true test, you are supposed to jog for a couple minutes first to warm up. I turn the treadmill on my 7mph rate and jog for half a lap. I then stand on the side rails and let it continue for the rest of the first lap and then jump on. I've got my little light blinky things down to a science, so I know exactly when the lap starts. I then run until the treadmill reads 5 laps (again, synchronizing my pressing of the button on the heart rate monitor with the lights blinking on the treadmill showing progress around the track). The heart rate monitor watch is used in exercise mode, which allows you to tell it to start recording your exercise and then to stop recording. It gives you the final (technically the highest) heart rate during that time period and the average, as well as the duration. During the exercising, it also tells you if you are in your target heart rate, but I don't use that feature for this particular test.

I then go weigh myself and plug the variables into an excel spreadsheet containing the formula to get my estimated VO2 max result. I have another column that shows the percentage deviation from the previous test to see if I'm going up or down by a measurable amount. As I stated before, I've been within about 1 percentage point so far, which I consider to be consistent.

The only thing I have to compare my test results to are a Bruce Protocol stress test that I took this past summer. However, the result I was given was measured as METs, not VO2 max. Although I can convert the values using a variety of equations found on the net, I'm guessing that is not an exact science. My results on the treadmill test are a bit lower than the VO2 max converted from the Bruce Protocol test (I don't have the values in front of me right now, but will post later). As I stated earlier, I could have skewed the Bruce test by operating in anaerobic mode for longer than usual. I also think I skewed it by not jogging until they upped it to 5.5 mph. Walking at 5 mph was more efficient, I believe, than running at that speed, thus allowed my heart rate to stay lower longer.

I'm currently on 600 mg of resveratrol (300 in the morning, 300 at night, with a multivitamin being taken each time). Earlier in the summer, I was on 400 mg of resveratrol and 1500 mg of quercetin, which also included 750 mg of bromelain (1125 GDU, since this bromelain is 1500 GDU/gram). Right after the Bruce test is when I switched to 600 mg resveratrol and dropped the quercetin/bromelain. It was then months before I did the treadmill tests.

I plan on taking LEFs CBC blood test in a couple weeks and then again a couple weeks after that to see if it is consistent. I then plan on starting the quercetin/bromelain again and getting the CBC done 1 week into it, 3 weeks into it, and 12 weeks into it to see how my blood metrics are affected. During that same time, I'll be doing the treadmill test two or three times per week. Given that it is just a short jog, I don't think I'll skew the results by doing it that often. Actually, that's a good thing for me to test in the coming weeks.

The CBC has more to do with measuring my bilirubin levels (due to an issue I have in that area that I believe the quercetin helps) than to note other possible effects of the added antioxidants and/or interactions between quercetin and bromelain, but it will also tell me if other metrics get better/worse by adding these other chemicals to my regimen.

The part I'm really curious about, however, is whether the quercetin/bromelain will help or hinder my mitochondria biogenesis. I figure that 30-90 days is probably a good range at how long these little buggers live (just guessing), so I'll continue the treadmill test for 3 months after changing the supplementation to note any long term trends, just in case this does cause them to decrease in numbers and/or ability. However, if I note a trend up in my VO2 max in the weeks following the change, then that will be a good sign that it isn't going to decrease further out.

After this test, I then plan on cutting out the resveratrol and quercetin and bromelain and do the treadmill test in the weeks following that change to see what effect that has on the mitochondria. I'll carry that test out to 90 days as well, I believe. I should then have a very good idea of what effect resveratrol has on my mitochondria as well as the mixture of the 3 chemicals. I may then test just quercetin/bromelain to see if it has any biogenesis effect for the next 90 days, although I wouldn't expect to see an increase in VO2 max from just those two items. I may, however, do the CBC test during that time period to see how quickly my metrics change vs. how they changed when I was on all 3 supplements.

Going forward, I plan on using the treadmill test to gauge how other supplements affect my VO2 max so that I will know if something is hindering resveratrol's mitochondrial biogenesis abilities.

I guess that is kind of long winded, as usual, but maybe someone will find some use in it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

David

[unglued]

davidd --

I had wondered about the walking vs. running thing too, because at 5 mph, I tend to walk, while a much shorter person would have to run, regardless of fitness. I don't know which is more efficient, but there has to be a difference. However, the Gerkin Protocol description I found explicitly says you can walk or run.

I suspect in my particular case my body is more efficient at walking at 3.4 mph due to the untold thousands of miles I've walked at about that speed in my life. By more efficient, I mean I probably burn less oxygen per mile. So I've long suspected the test I've been taking for the past four years is overestimating how much oxygen my heart is pumping with each beat to propel me at that speed.

But as for the wildly high numbers I've been getting lately on the 3.4 mph Startrac treadmill test, I'm approaching the low end of that on the Gerkin test as I reduce the age I claim. I think I've now got it about right: I found I was nearly exhausted and was breathing fairly hard when it cut off at a heat rate of 171. It uses the usual 220-age formula, which means I had to say I was 19 to get it to go until 171 bpm. (At 48, closer to 49, that's supposed to be about 100% of my maximum attainable heart rate, but it felt like what I'm told 85% should feel like, so I'm happy about that.) It estimated my VO_{2 Max} to be 71.1. I've also gotten scores of 64.9 and 67.7 from the milder Ebbeling test by saying I was 18.

[unglued]

Someone has set up a Google Docs form that will let anyone enter resveratrol dose and result information in a spreadsheet anonymously and without even registering for an account. The results show up in a spreadsheet that anyone can view. I've entered some of the info that fits on the form and has been posted on this topic in the past -- not that I have any hope of finding it all.

Links:

• Entry form for adding your data
• Results (web page)
• Results (Excel-format spreadsheet)

[davidd]

unglued,

Thanks for posting the links to the Google Docs. I'll have to enter in my information after my blood tests.

I think I can safely say that there is no doubt you are in tremendous condition, relative to your age (or any age), with regard to oxygen burning capacity. I'm sure you've already come across some of this before, but a high VO2 max is a good thing if you want to avoid mortality as much as possible.

http://www.lifeahead...er-cvd-risk.htm (good grid showing risk for various levels of VO2 max)
http://medgadget.com...max_a_good.html (higher VO2 max decreases risk of death for those with coronary artery disease)

http://www.accessibi...-daily-exercise (my favorite -- discusses METs rather than VO2 max, but same concept. They measure overall mortality, not just heart related.)

...
Based on this concept, the researchers divided the participants into four categories:

* 3,170 men were "low fit," achieving less than 5 METs;
* 5,153 men were "moderately fit," achieving 5 to 7 METs;
* 5,075 were "highly fit," achieving 7.1 to 10 METs; and
* 2,261 were "very highly fit," achieving more than 10 METs.

The study found that "highly fit" men had half the risk of death compared to "low fit" men. Men who achieved "very highly fit" levels had a 70 percent lower risk of death compared to those in the "low fit" category. For every 1-MET increase in exercise capacity (fitness), the risk for death from all causes was 13 percent [lower] for both African Americans and Caucasians.
...

I find that 13 percent lowered risk per MET to be amazing.


I looked up my data. The last three 1 mile jog tests I did at home came out with estimated VO2 max scores of 51.6, 51.6 and 50.9. The Bruce Protocol test I took came out with a score of 17.4 METs, which converts to a value of about 60 for VO2 max.

Of course, the million dollar question is whether resveratrol induced VO2 max is as healthy for you as exercise induced.

I'd be interested in what type of score you would get for the test I am using at home. That one doesn't use age as a variable.


David

[Rossi]

Starting 500 mg this month...have been taking 250 mg for 8 months...and have been taking 20 mg for quite some time.

[unglued]

Update on above VO_2max results:

Freemotion treadmill is giving me much more consistent results than the Startrac treadmill I've been measuring on for years, since before taking resveratrol. Its Gerkin test basically agrees with the low end of the Startrac's extremely high values.

• Gerkin protocol: last two scores were 71 and 77 (77.7). (Told it I was 16 so I'd be panting at the end, after 15 seconds at 174 bpm, which is 85% of 220-16 or 101% to 102% of the predicted max heart rate for my actual chronological age.)
• Ebelling protocol: mid to high 60's
• Freemotion protocol: low 60's

Although the Gerkin test is known to overestimate, this probably means the years of high Startrac numbers weren't completely crazy, so maybe their increase means something, and reservatrol is the most obvious change I made.

I've increased my dose recently to maybe the 5 to 10 mg/kg range. I'm beginning to suspect a rapid, dose-dependent effect on my blood pressure. Either due to the extra resveratrol or due to the running from the treadmill tests, my blood pressure is back down in the 100-110 range, where I remember it being before on high dosage. It had crept back up to average more like 117/81 on 300mg dosage. Originally it was in the 120's to 130's, varying widely, pre-resveratrol and at 100mg dosage.

[davidd]

Update on above VO_2max results:

Freemotion treadmill is giving me much more consistent results than the Startrac treadmill I've been measuring on for years, since before taking resveratrol. Its Gerkin test basically agrees with the low end of the Startrac's extremely high values.

• Gerkin protocol: last two scores were 71 and 77 (77.7). (Told it I was 16 so I'd be panting at the end, after 15 seconds at 174 bpm, which is 85% of 220-16 or 101% to 102% of the predicted max heart rate for my actual chronological age.)
• Ebelling protocol: mid to high 60's
• Freemotion protocol: low 60's

Although the Gerkin test is known to overestimate, this probably means the years of high Startrac numbers weren't completely crazy, so maybe their increase means something, and reservatrol is the most obvious change I made.

I've increased my dose recently to maybe the 5 to 10 mg/kg range. I'm beginning to suspect a rapid, dose-dependent effect on my blood pressure. Either due to the extra resveratrol or due to the running from the treadmill tests, my blood pressure is back down in the 100-110 range, where I remember it being before on high dosage. It had crept back up to average more like 117/81 on 300mg dosage. Originally it was in the 120's to 130's, varying widely, pre-resveratrol and at 100mg dosage.

Just wondering... When you do these tests, are you working out beforehand? I mean, what is your day like before you use the machines? Are you taking more than one test in a day?

David

[unglued]

David --

For the recent tests, since I have only a few days to try the Freemotion treadmill, I've been doing a bunch of tests in a row, with a brief rest in between. My 77.7 Gerkin result was the first test today, though, as soon as I walked in the door. I did, however, need to get there. That took a 10-minute bike ride. Earlier today I rode 25 minutes to the grocery store and 25 minutes back.

On a typical day over the past few years, my measurement on the Startrac treadmill was following a 20-minute bike ride, usually with an intervening 30 minutes of weight training and a 60-minute break to relax over a light dinner and a cafe latte. When that varied, any variation in the results was lost in the noise; the results on that treadmill were always variable.

I think my routine remained reasonably constant before and after starting resveratrol, so I don't think exercise was responsible for the increased performance on the Startrac.

[davidd]

David --

For the recent tests, since I have only a few days to try the Freemotion treadmill, I've been doing a bunch of tests in a row, with a brief rest in between. My 77.7 Gerkin result was the first test today, though, as soon as I walked in the door. I did, however, need to get there. That took a 10-minute bike ride. Earlier today I rode 25 minutes to the grocery store and 25 minutes back.

On a typical day over the past few years, my measurement on the Startrac treadmill was following a 20-minute bike ride, usually with an intervening 30 minutes of weight training and a 60-minute break to relax over a light dinner and a cafe latte. When that varied, any variation in the results was lost in the noise; the results on that treadmill were always variable.

I think my routine remained reasonably constant before and after starting resveratrol, so I don't think exercise was responsible for the increased performance on the Startrac.

What I am thinking is that all the exercise you are doing in the same day (or even preceeding days if it is extreme enough) is causing a lot of variability. The fact that you are still scoring high is intriguing, of course. I was just trying to figure out why my tests are extremely consistent and yours are highly variable and my guess is that the exercise is the cause of the variability.

Doing one test per day, if it is sub-maximal, or one per week for a maximal test, and doing it after a consistent, easy bike ride would probably produce more consistent results than doing many maximal tests per day and/or doing the tests after heavy exertion.

With many types of tests and high variability, it would be difficult for you to see the effect of supplementation, given the margin of error.

Of course, if you have a limited time available to use the machines and are just trying them out and aren't really interested in accuracy of the results, then that's an entirely different goal.

d

[unglued]

Doing one test per day, if it is sub-maximal, or one per week for a maximal test, and doing it after a consistent, easy bike ride would probably produce more consistent results than doing many maximal tests per day and/or doing the tests after heavy exertion.

Just the opposite happened. The new types of tests that I took repeatedly on one day were fairly consistent (just got 73 on Gerkin two days in a row, compared to 77 the time before), while the test I've been taking once a day after a routine bike ride was the highly variable one. But the median value on that one has definitely gone up over the last couple of years, during which time I started resveratrol and tried different doses.

The same day Gerkin gave me 73.1, I manually did an Astrand 6 minute Cycle test and calculated about 42.5 and 46.5.

Sorry I don't have pre-resveratrol results for the more consistent tests. The closest I have are some numbers (that I didn't record except qualitatively) from a Gerkin test and another test, about a week after I went on 400mg (5mg/kg), but they weren't at sea level. Also, I didn't know that I had to lie to the Gerkin test about my age:

Unfortunately, I don't have access to any other types of machines for a second opinion -- the one time I did, the scores were significantly lower, but I was visiting a city at 1500m elevation and I live at sea level, so that's to be expected.

Edited by unglued, 07 January 2009 - 09:12 PM.

[davidd]

Doing one test per day, if it is sub-maximal, or one per week for a maximal test, and doing it after a consistent, easy bike ride would probably produce more consistent results than doing many maximal tests per day and/or doing the tests after heavy exertion.

Just the opposite happened. The new types of tests that I took repeatedly on one day were fairly consistent (just got 73 on Gerkin two days in a row, compared to 77 the time before), while the test I've been taking once a day after a routine bike ride was the highly variable one. But the median value on that one has definitely gone up over the last couple of years, during which time I started resveratrol and tried different doses.

The same day Gerkin gave me 73.1, I manually did an Astrand 6 minute Cycle test and calculated about 42.5 and 46.5.

Sorry I don't have pre-resveratrol results for the more consistent tests. The closest I have are some numbers (that I didn't record except qualitatively) from a Gerkin test and another test, about a week after I went on 400mg (5mg/kg), but they weren't at sea level. Also, I didn't know that I had to lie to the Gerkin test about my age:

Unfortunately, I don't have access to any other types of machines for a second opinion -- the one time I did, the scores were significantly lower, but I was visiting a city at 1500m elevation and I live at sea level, so that's to be expected.

Any chance you'll try the 1 mile jog test so we can see how that compares with the maximal tests?

Good that you are getting more consistent results now, though. That's the main thing. I do wonder how accurate it is if you can do two maximal tests back to back and get the same score.

Oh, I thought it was a maximal test. I just looked it up and found that it is not. I think I could have figured that out if I would have read your posts more closely about the 85% thing. Here is some information you might find interesting:

http://occmed.oxford...stract/54/6/373

...


Results Although the predicted and observed VO_2max values correlated (r = 0.70, P < 0.001 and standard error of estimate = 5.98 ml/kg/min), the mean values differed (49.8 ± 8.3 and 41.8 ± 5.8 ml/kg/min, respectively) (P < 0.001). The VO_2max value was overestimated in 50 (93%) participants. The overestimation was >25% in 18 (33%) participants. Gender, age and VO_2max did not affect the Gerkin protocol’s predictability of VO_2max.
...


How is the heart rate calculated? Do you hold onto the treadmill handles to get that or wear a chest strap? Or does it use estimated calorie burning instead of heart rate in its calculations?

David

[unglued]

How is the heart rate calculated? Do you hold onto the treadmill handles to get that or wear a chest strap?

Handles, in all cases.

My last few tests on that Freemotion treadmill (which I no longer had access to) were in the same range as before: mid-70's Gerkin protocol, high 60's Ebbeling protocol. Back on my usual Startrac treadmill (3.4 mile/hr 0-11 incline), my most recent result was 111. Despite the too-high-to-believe absolute value and the large amount of variation, I'd say it's consistently higher than my pre-resveratrol tests from 2004-06. While I was still on 100mg, I reported that my VO_{2 max}:

has always been absurdly high, like in the 50's ... since I started measuring it in 2004, and I think it's been a little higher recently, ranging from 56 to 71.

On those same Startrac treadmills today, I rarely see numbers as "low" as that. As additional metrics, I've noticed that the point where I hit 120 bpm is now as late as 8 or 9 minutes, (incline of 7, I think), whereas it used to happen between 6 and 7 minutes, and the average is down to maybe 109 to 115 bpm.

By the way, thanks for the link, but I already saw that paper. In fact, I quoted it above, near at the end of last year:

Found this conclusion in a paper abstract: The Gerkin treadmill protocol overpredicts VO2max in healthy men and women...

Edited by unglued, 12 January 2009 - 10:06 PM.

[davidd]

How is the heart rate calculated? Do you hold onto the treadmill handles to get that or wear a chest strap?

Handles, in all cases.

My last few tests on that Freemotion treadmill (which I no longer had access to) were in the same range as before: mid-70's Gerkin protocol, high 60's Ebbeling protocol. Back on my usual Startrac treadmill (3.4 mile/hr 0-11 incline), my most recent result was 111. Despite the too-high-to-believe absolute value and the large amount of variation, I'd say it's consistently higher than my pre-resveratrol tests from 2004-06. While I was still on 100mg, I reported that my VO_{2 max}:

has always been absurdly high, like in the 50's ... since I started measuring it in 2004, and I think it's been a little higher recently, ranging from 56 to 71.

On those same Startrac treadmills today, I rarely see numbers as "low" as that. As additional metrics, I've noticed that the point where I hit 120 bpm is now as late as 8 or 9 minutes, (incline of 7, I think), whereas it used to happen between 6 and 7 minutes, and the average is down to maybe 109 to 115 bpm.

By the way, thanks for the link, but I already saw that paper. In fact, I quoted it above, near at the end of last year:

Found this conclusion in a paper abstract: The Gerkin treadmill protocol overpredicts VO2max in healthy men and women...

unglued,

When you are doing these tests, do you run the whole time, or walk fast part of the time? Do you hold onto the machine with your hands, or swing your arms?

I'm heading downstairs in about 30 minutes to do my test again. I'm going to try to do it every other day for a week and see if that causes more variation than doing it every few weeks, which was my approximate frequency previously.

I am not sure if I mentioned previously in this latest discussion... I don't exercise regularly, so that's why I find the higher than usual VO2 max intriguing. Your values are fabulous, regardless of exercise and age. You appear to be exercising quite a bit too, which is good.

I have a hunch that resveratrol induced increased VO2 max might allow couch potatoes to transition from no exercise to an exercise program more easily than if they started from their "normal" VO2 max levels. Hard to test without doing a full study.

David