We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
the amount of red wine that one would have to drink in order to get enough resveratrol in order for it to be health promoting is so outrageously high that it would surely induce other negative effects that would offset the positive effects of resveratrol.
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.
I would be remiss, however, if I didn't tell you that resveratrol as the argument for drinking, and drinking red wine in particular, is just not a good one. It's just not supported by the peer-reviewed research.
And forget the studies on red wine. You'd have to drink so much red wine to get enough resveratrol. It's not even clear resveratrol does anything useful anyway, et cetera, et cetera.
If anyone tells you, oh, well, there's all this resveratrol in red wine, and that's good for us, the data simply tell us there's not enough resveratrol in red wine to really have any positive health benefit.
you're talking about you know the Resveratrol and red wine which is at you know infinitesimally small amounts and not even clear Resveratrol is good for us anyway by the way
To get the same as our mice you’d have to drink a barrel a day, which I definitely don’t recommend, however tempting
To get the same as our mice you’d have to drink a barrel a day, which I definitely don’t recommend, however tempting