Talk:Resveratrol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Resveratrol was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 16, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
October 8, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
November 18, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
March 8, 2012 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Tone and sources[edit]

Per WP:MEDMOS:

Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other "qualifications" of their authors. The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation. Always omit professional titles and academic degrees: use "Smith" or "Jones" rather than "Dr Smith" or "Prof Jones"
— Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Citing_sources

I have therefore removed many of the details about "when, where, and who" performed the studies to focus on "what" the studies say about resveratrol.

Also Wikipedia articles should not read like scientific review article. In fact, per WP:MEDRS, we should not be reviewing the primary literature ourselves, but rather rely on secondary sources. Most of the sources currently in this article are primary. These should be replaced with secondary sources where possible. Boghog (talk) 08:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Links to relevant secondary sources may be found in the "Ideal sources" box at the top of this talk page. Boghog (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Contradictions in section about varying quantities in wine[edit]

This section:

starts with a table showing Pinot noir as having almost no reservatol, and then a paragraph saying that "trans-resveratrol concentration in 40 Tuscan wines ranged from 0.3 to 2.1 mg/l in the 32 red wines".

But then the section ends with a paragraph that says "wines made from grapes of the Pinot Noir and St. Laurent varieties showed the highest level of trans-resveratrol, though no wine or region can yet be said to produce wines with significantly higher concentrations than any other wine or region."

That seems contradictory to me (Pinot noir has none but it has the most, and there's variation from 0.3 to 2.1 but there's no variation). Is one correct and one wrong? Or am I misunderstanding? Maybe I don't understand the difference between reservatol and trans-reservatol.

Which brings me to my last issue: after reading the explanation in Reservatol#Chemical_and_physical_properties, I still don't know if the good stuff is trans-, cis- or if it has to be plain non-prefixed reservatol.

Any improvements to the article would be appreciated. Thanks. Gronky (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I've also skimmed the mentions of "Pinot Noir" in one of the cited papers [1] and I don't see anything to back up the numbers in the table of [[content levels. Can anyone review that data? Gronky (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

How many studies?[edit]

While proofreading, I found a grammar problem called number agreement at Resveratrol#Sirtuin activation: "Some of the benefits demonstrated in previous studies were overstated,[115][116] however, this study was challenged immediately,[117] and a few experiments were suggested to be of inferior quality.[118]" "this study" refers to "previous studies", so are there studies or just one study? Should it be "previous study ... this study", "previous studies ... these studies", or "previous studies ... one of these studies"? 98.247.55.21 (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Massive blanking[edit]

Like at stated at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals, seen here and here, "More eyes on the Resveratrol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article are needed. New editor Local4554 is repeatedly blanking material at the article without justifying his edits, and despite warnings not to do so." Flyer22 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverting without Reading the Article[edit]

Before you revert content, it would be wise to read the edits. The material removed was biased and made by 3rd party pharmaceutical companies promoting their own products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local4554 (talkcontribs) 01:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I can see, this is not what you are doing at all. You are removing all reliable sources that have failed to find benefits of resveratrol. I am One of Many (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Here is a quote from one of your "reliable sources": Abstract

Rapamycin was administered in food to genetically heterogeneous mice from the age of 9 months and produced significant increases in life span, including maximum life span, at each of three test sites. Median survival was extended by an average of 10% in males and 18% in females. Rapamycin attenuated age-associated decline in spontaneous activity in males but not in females. Causes of death were similar in control and rapamycin-treated mice. Resveratrol (at 300 and 1200 ppm food) and simvastatin (12 and 120 ppm) did not have significant effects on survival in male or female mice. Further evaluation of rapamycin's effects on mice is likely to help delineate the role of the mammalian target of rapamycin complexes in the regulation of aging rate and age-dependent diseases and may help to guide a search for drugs that retard some or all of the diseases of aging. [1]

This is clearly promoting the product "Rapamycin"! Local4554 (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Not everything that views something positively is promotional. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. And why is this info nowhere to be found in the article anymore? Fascinating, because it is the one study that caused trans-resveratrol to be booming among those who are studying (and aspiring) longevity. Could someone put it back where it belongs? The article doesn't do justice at all to the proven and known positive effects in that field. In fact, it now reads as if this substance is snake-oil, alternative medicine, or all quackery for supplement sales, which is far from the reality. I was linking to this WP article for a med student asking me about it, only to find it totally misrepresents it. I tend to give up on using WP because of such ludicrous mishaps.

References

Concerns[edit]

This article is a mess of primary sources in contravention of WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Basically all primary research needs removing. As do popular press and company press releases (wow this article is poorly referenced).
The section in health effects needs to be supported by reviews of human research. The reviews of non human research can go in a research section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I haven't read the article recently. Popular press and company press releases used to describe facts or analysis of resveratrol, in general, are not the best. Removing all primary sources is not dictated by policy. An article cannot primarily rely on primary sources, but they can certainly be used with care in any article. Guided by scientific reviews, it is very useful and consistent with policy to use primary sources. In this case, peer reviewed scientific studies. When used alone, care must be taken to only state the facts reported with no synthesis or conclusions drawn, such as "Study X reported Y". I am One of Many (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Not really. One does not use primary sources to refute high quality secondary ones per WP:MEDRS which this article did a lot of. Much of it fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you on that at all. In fact, we may not disagree at all. I only wanted to point out that one doesn't remove a primary source simply because it is a primary source. If it is not used correctly, then it should be removed. It may be that all of the primary sources in this article should be removed, but not just because they are primary sources. I am One of Many (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

JMH649, you've reverted my edit before I've even finished writing this comment! Other references in the Research section cite the original published papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Do feel free to substitute secondary or tertiary sources if you think best, but surely consistency is preferable? --Davidcpearce (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

JMH649, which of the secondary sources do you suggest? I'm quite wary about citing them rather than the original journal literature because a lot of the secondary sources seem one-sided - and in some cases, they have links to commercial interests. --Davidcpearce (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If there are no secondary sources we should leave it out. Just because there are other primary sources does not mean we should add more of them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. Recent research like this is rarely worth mentioning, and would require for us to do so. --Ronz (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649/DocJames, isn't citing work published in peer-reviewed scientific journals preferable to citing secondary sources - or indeed unpublished original research? Peer review is flawed; but the alternatives seem worse. Ronz, deletion of a section on the grounds the research it cites is dated is defensible; but not deletion on the grounds that the research is recent. For what it's worth, I'd considered citing instead the 2010 Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. study by Xu and his colleagues of trans-resveratrol's dose-dependent inhibition of MAO-A and its effect on serotonin and noradrenaline function. Would you consider the older reference preferable? --Davidcpearce (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

How about we just follow MEDRS? It has guidelines on the use of both recent and old research. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Preferred use of peer-reviewed journals and up-to-date research? If you're sceptical this research will ever turn out to have clinical relevance to humans, I am too; but the section would better be restored and strengthened, not deleted.--Davidcpearce (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrrn, I share your antipathy to unreliable sources. But the original papers have been published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals; and the secondary source cited, namely Victor R. Preedy, is currently Professor in the Department of Dietetics, King's College London and Honorary Professor in Clinical Biochemistry, King's College Hospital and Director of the Genomics Centre, Kings College London. Further, the sub-section in question is placed under the heading "Research"; and the fact that no controlled therapeutic trials have been conducted on humans is explicitly noted. --Davidcpearce (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Which secondary source? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
That is not a major medical textbook. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed not. This section isn't about the medical uses of resveratrol in humans, but rather its putative antidepressant action in nonhuman animals. I would prefer to cite only the original published papers, but I was trying to accommodate your request above for a reliable secondary source as well. If you have any reservations about the quality of the journal studies - or indeed Professor Preedy's (IMO excellent) volume - why not add a sentence or two to that effect? --Davidcpearce (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
There are review articles on this topic. We should be using them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Most of the 130 or so references for this entry cite (rightly IMO) the original journal-published articles. IMO Wikipedia should be consistent. However, I added a well-respected secondary source too as requested above. The TRIP database is geared to providing evidence-based medicine for clinicians. It's invaluable for that purpose. But this section is not about the medical use of resveratrol in humans. --Davidcpearce (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Still not convinced this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=24717328 is a good source for any content on Wikipedia. First the stuff was injected. Second the "depression" rats have was determined by looking at some brain markers and how long they swam when forced. There are lots of reviews that look at clinical research and summarizes it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not just use this secondary source [2]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Doc James I must say without sarcasm I am impressed how you decided to get rid of the primary sources. I just improved the article on Czech Wikipedia and could not resist but cite some of the primary sources. Cell and J Clin Invest? Who am I to ignore papers in these journals? But yes, the lack of good secondary sources (at least a couple reviews) is bewildering. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes people continue to use primary sources and remove secondary ones. There are secondary sources out there on this topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Many of the sources are dated. The third sentence of the article is blatantly incorrect and needs to be removed, replaced or include a citation. "As of 2016, there is no evidence to suggest that consuming resveratrol-rich foods or taking resveratrol as a dietary supplement has any health effects in humans" is contradicted by recent research, making the statement "no evidence" invalid. This should be changed to "limited evidence" or the evidence is "inconclusive." The statement certainly conveys an incorrect sentiment to the reader. Urbansiberia (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The Sirtuin activation section under Research heading needs to be cleaned up. It's essentially meaningless as written and unclear what message is being conveyed. Urbansiberia (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1216 - this reference seems of interest to me. It is talking about mechanisms, not claiming to be about evidence for effects in animals - or humans for that matter. JohnAugust (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

No mention of research on anti-inflammatory effects[edit]

Here is an example:

Bereswill, Stefan, et al. "Anti-inflammatory effects of resveratrol, curcumin and simvastatin in acute small intestinal inflammation." PloS one 5.12 (2010): e15099. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.211.65 (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Fails WP:MEDRS, and PLoS One is a less-than-stellar source too. Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Effects on health[edit]

Beyond the fact that this article is very poor and outdated, a (recent) source is required to support the categorical statement that no research supports that resveratrol has any effect on health. Recent research points to the contrary. Unless a source is provided (from 2015 or after) this categorical statement must be deleted from lead.Llanimami (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This statement in the lede was reverted by User:Llanimami, "Although it is currently being used as a dietary supplement and evaluated in preliminary research for its potential to affect human diseases, there is no clear evidence to date that consuming resveratrol-rich foods or taking resveratrol as a supplement affects human health." Llanimami wishes to say: "It is currently being studied as a dietary supplement and treatment for Alzheimer's among other conditions."
Both statements are true. The contested part of the first sentence, "there is no clear evidence to date that consuming resveratrol-rich foods or taking resveratrol as a supplement affects human health", is a fact based upon standards of sourcing for human health effects per WP:MEDRS. The Turner reference here is a preliminary clinical trial, not yet sufficiently conclusive to state that resveratrol has beneficial effects on Alzheimer's disease. --Zefr (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
User:Llanimami thanks for coming to Talk. Everything in Wikipedia depends on sources, and the kinds of sources you are bringing are not OK. Please do see WP:MEDRS which is the relevant guideline for sourcing content about health. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog Check my last edit to the article.Llanimami (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Section 7.6[edit]

Could this section be expanded somewhat. There is plenty to say on these studies and fitting them all into one sentence seems rather insufficient to me.Jytdog ?Llanimami2 (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes for sure! Please use reliable secondary sources for it... Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Skin protection[edit]

Per WP:BRD, I removed this section from the article. "Reviews" of primary research are still primary research. --Zefr (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement removed: The oxidative stress induced by ultraviolet radiation is one of the main causes for premature skin aging (unsourced, not proven). The photoprotective effects of several polyphenols known for their antioxidant properties, including resveratrol, have been investigated in silico and in topical application conditions.[3][4]

Assessment:

  • in silico is too premature to mention here
  • there is no reliable evidence that topical resveratrol or any polyphenols have a "photoprotective" effect on skin aging
  • there is no reliable evidence that resveratrol or any polyphenols are antioxidants in vivo
  • at 10 years old, the two references are out of date and appear not to have been reinvestigated by different investigators — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zefr (talkcontribs) 18:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
These sources are WP:MEDRS compliant and you are deciding on rejecting them on the basis of what they say. WP:MEDASSESS clearly states that we do not do this. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
hmmm. Seppi your reverts kind of sucked for lacking edit notes. Zefr while I hear you, that content and sources are OK. They do need updating, for sure. This whole article is mostly a train wreck and something I have been wanting to get to. Resveratrol especially as a potential sirtuin modulator is one of the most overhyped phytochemicals around.
fwiw the section on Sirtuin activation is much more of a disaster. Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
While I agree that I probably should've communicated better earlier on, Zefr already knows that these are medical reviews. I shouldn't have to point out something which is readily apparent to him. He's just removing this because he doesn't like what the sources say. Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The article's history will show my involvement in establishing MEDRS-compliant content. The discussions on "skin protection" and sirtuins/longevity are glaring exaggerations under-supported by solid or even borderline MEDRS sources. In the interest of serving the typical encyclopedia user per MEDASSESS: "Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited to imply wide acceptance." Hence, my removal of this section. --Zefr (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
A medical review isn't a research article, so why are you quoting that? Seppi333 (Insert ) 18:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no reason for this edit war; you are both right and wrong. Please stop arguing about the existing content which is meh at best (yet sustainable per policy). The problem can and should be fixed by editing, by simply updating the refs and content based on them; i don't have time right now (I have to give a talk which is exciting!) and if neither of you do, Zefr your concerns can be met right now with an Template:Update tag on the section. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Frankly, I really don't care much for this article. I'm just here to make sure Zefr doesn't remove medical reviews from articles as he consistently does. Face-smile.svg I hope your talk goes well Jytdog. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind wishes. turns out the talk is tomorrow, ack.  :) so i can work on this. You both contribute great things to WP. I understand your different approaches and appreciate them (there is a lot of good in both). I know it is hard for each of you to see that in each other. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • it is really hard to edit well about resveratrol as the literature is full of credulous woo like PMID 26864554. argh. am looking for high quality reviews... Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Per the comment by Jytdog that PMID 268554 is "woo", it seems odd why anyone would want this drivel in the article, so it is removed: [Resveratrol] is a polyphenolic phytoalexin stilbenoid derivative of stilbene (Fig. 4A), produced naturally by a wide variety of plants such as grapes, peanuts, mulberries, cranberries, and eucalyptus. Resveratrol is known to possess cardio-protective, antioxidant, neuroprotective, immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, metabolism-regulating, and anti-cancer effects [151]. An accumulating body of evidence has shown that resveratrol inhibits cell growth and induces apoptosis in various melanoma cells by S-phase cell cycle arrest and down-regulation of cyclins [152, 153]. ... These data support a potential use of mono or combination resveratrol therapy for the management of melanoma. --Zefr (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of this content. It's a quote from the source which is relevant to the cited article text. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
You are infamous at WP for overquoting, and this case is no exception. Every statement from the quote resides elsewhere in the article, or relies on WP:PRIMARY in vitro/animal research unproven to apply to human skin diseases, i.e., pure misleading speculation. Take a rest for awhile. --Zefr (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
"Infamous" ... lol. I'll admit that I do overquote somtimes, but that's no reason for you to delete the entire quote or revert content that I add when you're well past the 3RR limit. If you actually talked to me on the talk page beforehand, perhaps I'd be more willing to compromise. However, so far your only justification for reverting my edits has basically been WP:JDL - this quote comes from a medical review, so your entire justification about the nature of the research or it somehow being "primary" isn't a valid argument. Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • please be patient, you all. the literature on this compound is vast and I spent three hours yesterday reading and looking for good refs. please be patient; each of you please consider unwatching and coming back in a couple of weeks and the article will look pretty different. if you want to stay engaged of course please do but please focus on the content and not on each other. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm not pleased with Zefr's gross violation of 3RR. Perhaps if he undid his edits, I might be willing to do that; however, at the moment I'm more concerned with his editing behavior than the actual article content. Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
That is not a great thing to work out on a specific article, especially not in the actual content. Both of you want to improve WP; Zefr is more concerned with keeping content high quality and removing the piles and piles of shit that exist in WP especially when there are actual health claims involved; you are more concerned with adding fine detail especially about pharmacology and mechanisms. Both of you can go a bit too far in pursuing your interests as well. It's a hard conflict as there is a very reasonable, mission-based thrust on both sides and neither of you are vandals - far from it. The right to place to work that out is over a beer but absent that, in a discussion on one of your Talk pages where you try to reach a mutual understanding. The project would be worse off without either of you. I mean that. It is getting way too personalized and what is the word... festery - for both of you and your interpresonal conflict is starting to disrupt the project. Both of you.. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this is going to be reconciled on a talk page, especially when Zefr goes out of his way to try to derail a FAC nomination that I opened. While I do have an issue with him as an editor, it doesn't change the fact that his behavior in editing this particular article is in gross violation of 3RR. Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Sirtuin activation section[edit]

Moving this here as it is gobbledegook. Should be there but needs serious copyediting and much better sources...

Sirtuin activation

Some of the benefits demonstrated in previous studies were overstated,[1][2] however, this study was challenged immediately,[3] and a few experiments were suggested to be of inferior quality.[4]

References

  1. ^ "'Longevity gene' may be dead end: study". The Raw Story. Agence France-Presse. September 12, 2011. 
  2. ^ Ledford H (September 2011). "Longevity genes challenged. Do sirtuins really lengthen lifespan?". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2011.549. 
  3. ^ Viswanathan M, Guarente L; Guarente (September 2011). "Regulation of Caenorhabditis elegans lifespan by sir-2.1 transgenes". Nature. 477 (7365): E1–2. Bibcode:2011Natur.477E...1V. doi:10.1038/nature10440. PMID 21938026. 
  4. ^ Lombard DB, Pletcher SD, Cantó C, Auwerx J; Pletcher; Cantó; Auwerx (September 2011). "Ageing: longevity hits a roadblock". Nature. 477 (7365): 410–1. Bibcode:2011Natur.477..410L. doi:10.1038/477410a. PMID 21938058. 

-- Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

How about deleting the Foods section?[edit]

OR perhaps radically reducing it to a very short statement? The issue here is that the resveratrol content of a glass of red wine (or any realistic serving of any resveratrol containing food) is so small - on the order of 1-2 mg/serving - as to clearly not be responsible for any of the claimed benefits for red wine. A point here is that red wine contains 250-500 mg polyphenols per five ounces, so resveratrol is less than 1% of the total. The great majority of resveratrol clinical trials are in range of 100 to 1000 mg/day. It is time to untangle resveratrol from the French Paradox and from any other implication that resveratrol containing foods have health benefits because of the resveratrol content. I would appreciate hearing from some of the strongly opinionated Wikipedia editors before attempting such a radical surgery. And perhaps such an action should be accompanied by a clear explanation in TALK as to why it was done. The problem, of course, is finding strong secondary source references rather than resting on original research and opinion. David notMD (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Much improved. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting. Hope this did not ruin your weekend. I will try to track down a valid reference for content in supplement ingredients. David notMD (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I have been meaning to improve the sourcing on this article for a long time... Jytdog (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Skin, revisited[edit]

A search conducted March 2017 yielded two uncontrolled clinical trials on combination products for skin in which resveratrol was one ingredient (Farris 2014, Ferzli 2013). IMO too preliminary to use in the article, even under "Research." One to consider: Fabbrocini G, Staibano S, De Rosa G, Battimiello V, Fardella N, Ilardi G, La Rotonda MI, Longobardi A, Mazzella M, Siano M, Pastore F, De Vita V, Vecchione ML, Ayala F. Resveratrol-containing gel for the treatment of acne vulgaris: a single-blind, vehicle-controlled, pilot study. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2011 Apr 1;12(2):133-41. PubMed PMID: 21348544. David notMD (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Lifespan[edit]

Replacing "There is no evidence for an effect of resveratrol on lifespan in humans " with "Although its positive effects are evident in yeast and mice they still have to be confirmed in humans" [5] seems misleading for two reasons. First it introduces the topic of effects on yeast and mice without any related content anywhere in the article. Second, it uses a non-neutral presentation that suggests it will be confirmed in the future. Also note that the second option is a direct quote and should have been presented as such, though it's rather inappropriate to use a quote in this specific context in the article as we're summarizing health effects. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
So change "Although its positive effects are evident in yeast and mice they still have to be confirmed in humans" to "Although its positive effects are evident in yeast and mice and there is no evidence for an effect of resveratrol on lifespan in humans as of 2011" and there is not really a need to be related to the rest of the rest of that article, it merely shows that it DOES have an effect that increases life but that it's not proven or disproven in humans yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretLars (talkcontribs) 23:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Please indent and sign your posts. That is as basic here as "please" and "thank you".
Nobody cares about increasing the lifespan of yeast and mice, as you note the whole purpose of writing that is to get to the "yet". We don't do that kind of WP:CRYSTALBALL hyping. There are lots of dietary supplement websites where you can find that kind of hype. We fully understand what you are saying; you are not the first person (by far) who has wanted to hype unproven therapies here in WP. It is not what we do. Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
First of if you were a mouse owner then you'd probably want to extend the live of your pet/pets (depending on how many you have), second if you're brewing or fermenting using yeast then a longer living yeast would increase fermentation, thirdly having the information present that experiments on resveratrols lifespan increasing have been done on yeast and mice would also be helpful for researchers as it would tell them that the experiments have been made so they can either test it to replicate it (the source then also leading to the study they can cite themselves) or they can then choose a different living being to see if it would work for that animal; so you can stop with your douchey "nobody cares" attitude!
You apparently don't understand the use of "yet", it refers to in this context that human testing has not YET been made; the operative wording you actually should have looked at is "it's not proven or disproven" so it's not hyping, it's stating that tests on humans have not been made (probably because humans live so long!). Besides I didn't suggest that the word "yet" to be used in the article! "you are not the first person who has wanted to hype unproven therapies here" I'm not wanting to hype, Learn to read! There are a lot of other websites that can teach you, I'd suggest you go there. I'm saying that the sources state that the stilbenoids' "theraputic effects" do work on yeast and mice but that it is unconfirmed in humans, that is not hype; that is stating fact. SecretLars (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Nothing there is helpful. Your actual edit was Although its positive effects are evident in yeast and mice they still have to be confirmed in humans. "Still", "yet", whatever. That is the resveratrol hype bandwagon. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree with User:Ronz Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the original text was fine. Alexbrn (talk) 06:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree with User:Ronz; noting proposals at WTMED (e.g. adding "as of 2011") - not sure that timing is notable but it might help editors who follow to anchor their searches with that context. — soupvector (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
If you think that "still" and "yet" is hype (which it isn't) then one can change it to "Although its positive effects are evident in yeast and mice it isn't confirmed in humans."SecretLars (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
The problems are that it is not being presented in any encyclopedic context, and echos the marketing hype. Those are WP:NOT and WP:POV violations. Find more sources and work from them. --Ronz (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
This is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Nonconfirming_Animal_Research_on_Resveratrol. --Ronz (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The findings from animal research involving pharmacologically-active compounds – be it pharmaceuticals, experimental compounds, or biomolecules (and more specifically, phytochemicals like resveratrol) – very, very often do not translate to humans for a multitude of reasons. The most obvious reason for a failure of translation is that the genomes of non-human animals and humans differ; that's significant because the genes that encode the proteins upon which a compound acts as a ligand/substrate, signals through, or otherwise interacts with in one species can differ significantly from, or even not exist in, another species. Consequently, the findings from research in organisms such as C. elegans, mice, or a particular species of fungus can be used to guide subsequent clinical research in humans; but, due to the aforementioned reason alone (i.e., ignoring all the other potential issues, like the validity of a particular animal model of a disease/condition and the pervasive lack of reproducibility of study results in biology research, among others), the findings from animal research do not indicate or even suggest that those results pertain to humans.

So, if the effects of resveratrol on human lifespan haven't been studied at all, the text should simply state that "there is no evidence of an effect in humans"; note well that this wording does not convey the same meaning as "there is evidence of no effect in humans." Moreover, this wording conveys a similar message as the statement "these findings have not yet been confirmed in humans", but it differs in the sense that it doesn't convey an expectation of an effect in humans. Given the explanation in the preceding paragraph and the WP:MEDANIMAL section of MEDRS, neutral wording like this is exactly how a statement about a lack of clinical evidence should be phrased. As an alternative, it would also be reasonable IMO, but also far more verbose, to say: "Although resveratrol has been shown to affect the lifespan of yeast and mice, as of [MONTH YEAR], clinical studies with resveratrol have not been conducted to determine if it has an effect on the lifespan of humans." Seppi333 (Insert ) 07:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of animals in which evidence has found no effect on life expectancy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Doc James: Given that the article implies that there's an effect in non-human organisms, those findings of a non-significant (i.e., lack of) effect of resveratrol on the lifespan of the animals you're referring to should (IMO: needs to) be explicitly stated in the article. Edit: nevermind, I thought the article included the phrase "Although its positive effects are evident in yeast and mice ... ", but it doesn't. What do you think about the following wording? "Although resveratrol has been shown to affect the lifespan of yeast and mice, studies on [list of species] have found that resveratrol does not affect lifespan. As of [MONTH YEAR], clinical studies with resveratrol have not been conducted to determine if it has an effect on the lifespan of humans." Seppi333 (Insert ) 19:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I think mentioning mice without a shed-load of context about the translatability of animal studies is just too problematic and implication-heavy. All that anybody is interested in is human effect, and we must be aware of that. If we must allude to the mice I think a good way is to say something like "although resveratrol has been investigated in the laboratory for its effect on lifespan there is no evidence of it having any benefit for humans." Alexbrn (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Your proposed version seems fine to me. I think the statement in the Resveratrol#Metabolism section – Animal studies indicate that resveratrol induces metabolic adaptations in mice associated with an "exercise-trained" state (i.e., higher physical fitness), but clinical studies have found that these effects do not occur in humans.[15] – makes it clear that findings from animal studies don't necessarily translate to humans though. Seppi333 (Insert ) 20:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)