The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
Detractors of resveratrol point to some human clinical trials not recapitulating the effects seen in other mammals This new review by Redeva & Yoncheva argues that the delivery of resveratrol is the main reason for the variation in humans trials.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
Despite being highly beneficial in rodents, resveratrol as a human therapy has many limitations. It's eseentially water-insoluble & is converted to sulfate & glucuronide forms then excreted.
we knew it was a terrible molecule because of the solubility alone