Resveratrol and Longevity: Miracle Molecule or Marketing Myth?

December 2, 2024

Mythos Resveratrol: Zwischen Hype, Hoffnung und Realität

December 2, 2024

Resveratrol was once hailed as the beacon of hope in longevity research. This text shows how this came about, why expectations have not been confirmed and why we believe that, based on current scientific evidence, no serious longevity expert can seriously recommend resveratrol to healthy people.

The idea of stopping aging or extending life has always fascinated people. A few years ago, resveratrol, a polyphenol found in the skin of red grapes, got a lot of attention based on a preclinical study that seemed promising. Scientists and the media celebrated it as a miracle molecule for anti-aging and health. But what sounded like a groundbreaking discovery unfortunately turned out to be scientifically highly questionable upon closer inspection. In this article, we take a look at the promises, the reality, and the consequences for its use in longevity products.

In 2006, David Sinclair's study raised high expectations

In 2006, a study by David Sinclair on mice caused a worldwide sensation. It showed that resveratrol could extend the lifespan of mice fed an extremely high-fat (life-threatening) diet by activating enzymes called sirtuins. These enzymes are associated with the positive effects of calorie restriction, which has been shown to prolong life in various organisms. The supposedly relevant results caused a stir not only in the media but also in the pharmaceutical industry.

What David Sinclair's mice had to go through

The euphoria was short-lived. Critical post-analysis of the original study showed that resveratrol only helped mice that were fed an extremely unbalanced and unhealthy diet, but had no effect on the maximum lifespan of healthy animals.

This is because in David Sinclair's 2006 study, the mice were not simply overfed, but force-fed an extremely unhealthy diet consisting of 60 percent fat, mostly in the form of coconut oil with a particularly high content of saturated fatty acids. The consequences for the poor mice were not only extreme obesity, inflammation, and severe metabolic disorders, but also liver damage and insulin resistance-like conditions.

Resveratrol only showed an effect under these extreme conditions, and later studies with healthy mice did not confirm this effect. The supposed “lifespan effect” was therefore an artifact and not a scientific breakthrough.

From hope to flop: resveratrol and Sirtris

In 2008, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) bought Sirtris Pharmaceuticals, a biotech company specializing in resveratrol, for $720 million. However, the takeover did not end well. Development of the resveratrol derivative SRT501 was discontinued in 2010 due to safety concerns and the inability to replicate the highly acclaimed preclinical results from David Sinclair's research. In 2013, Sirtris was finally shut down completely. The case is now considered a cautionary tale of exaggerated hopes and scientific hype in longevity research.

Peter Attia: "Can we say anything positive about resveratrol?"
Steven Austad: "No."
Peter Attia: "Rich?"
Richard Miller: "No."
Peter Attia: "Why does this thing not die?"
Steven Austad: "Money?"
Peter Attia: "Why is there still a hundred different resveratrols being sold on Amazon, why do I still get people asking me, do you take resveratrol? Should I be taking resveratrol?"
Richard Miller: "It has a good PR team."
Matt Kaeberlein: "I was saying the resveratrol stuff was garbage for 10 years before people believed it. Now everybody believes it, but it takes a really long time. Well, at least in the aging field, you never see people studying resveratrol in the aging field anymore. I think if you went to a conference and asked scientists, what do you think about resveratrol? You'd get the same answer here with maybe one exception."
Peter Attia: "Bad ideas don't die hard."
Matt Kaeberlein: "That’s right."

Source: The Longevity Roundtable (January 27, 2025)

The ITP gold standard finally debunks resveratrol

The Intervention Testing Program (ITP), funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US and publicly financed, is a long-term project being conducted at three independent US laboratories.

It is considered the gold standard in longevity research because substances are tested under strictly controlled, standardized, and reproducible conditions, large numbers of animals are used, and the results are independently verified. The goal is to enable reliable statements to be made about potential life-extending agents.

In the case of resveratrol, all ITP studies clearly showed that the substance had no effect on lifespan in male and female mice, neither when administered from young adulthood nor when started later in life. A meta-analysis of human studies also found no relevant benefits for metabolic health, body weight, or blood lipid levels. In addition, the bioavailability of resveratrol in the human body has been found to be extremely low, making effective dosing virtually impossible.

Resveratrol is still sold

Despite these well-founded doubts, resveratrol remains a popular supplement, despite being scientifically unproven.

Crazy, isn't it?

Peter Attia: “Are you surprised by how ubiquitous resveratrol supplements still are on the internet?”
Rich Miller: "Sorry to be cynical, but people are very easily fooled. It's easy to find eight or ten things that people believe because they read them on the internet or saw them on TV, and they're convinced, but people are very, very gullible."

While companies such as GSK have long since discontinued their resveratrol research, the market for resveratrol products continues to flourish. This discrepancy between science and marketing shows how strong the need for simple solutions is. It reminds us how important it is to base health-related decisions on sound evidence rather than marketing promises.

An acid test for “longevity experts”

So if, despite this overwhelming evidence, someone still mentions resveratrol as the key to longevity, it is unfortunately a clear sign that their expertise should be seriously questioned.

That's why we at ASPRIVA are convinced that the only responsible approach is to rely exclusively on human clinical trials and ignore everything else. Please don't believe the common excuse that human studies or RCTs are too expensive. This claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Thousands of trusted scientists around the world are actively researching ways to improve human health. If a substance is truly promising, it will receive the necessary funding. The reality is that more than 90 percent of molecules that show positive effects in preclinical studies fail to produce results in human clinical trials.