Red wine and chocolate might be the perfect combination for recharging after a long day, but a new study suggests they’re not the magical elixir for a longer life.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University found that resveratrol — the antioxidant in red wine and chocolate that has long been cited as a possible explanation for the “French Paradox” — actually has little effect on aging.
Researchers tracked for 11 years roughly 800 Italian men and women age 65 and older to determine if the levels of resveratrol in their diet played a role in reducing inflammation, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and death. They found no association between resveratrol and longevity of life.
Richard Semba, a professor at Johns Hopkins and the lead researcher on the project, said it oversimplifies the “French Paradox” to credit resveratrol intake through heavy wine consumption as the reason the French have low rates of cardiovascular disease despite a diet rich in fatty foods.
“I think there are other factors involved,” Semba said. “Other antioxidants other than resveratrol could contribute, “¦ or smaller portions and more exercise. The ‘French Paradox’ is still kind of a hypothesis. It doesn’t seem to make sense.”
The National Institute on Aging funded the research, which was conducted independently of the agency.
The research doesn’t overturn the so-called French Paradox altogether — other chemical compounds in red wine and chocolate could still offer health benefits, Semba says. And resveratrol has been linked in earlier tests of nonhuman species such as mice to anti-aging benefits, reduced risk of blood clotting, and prevention against obesity and diabetes.
But the findings from Johns Hopkins are based on the first studies using human subjects to determine the effects of resveratrol on aging, according to Semba.
So when it comes to buying resveratrol in dietary supplements, he doesn’t recommend shelling out the dough. Semba calls the supplements a “false hope” — about as effective as drinking large quantities of red wine to improve your health.
What We're Following See More »
"Even if House Republicans manage to get enough members of their party on board with the latest version of their health care bill, they will face another battle in the Senate: whether the bill complies with the chamber’s arcane ... Byrd rule, which stipulates all provisions in a reconciliation bill must affect federal spending and revenues in a way that is not merely incidental." Democrats should have the advantage in that fight, "unless the Senate pulls another 'nuclear option.'”
The House has passed a one-week spending bill that will avert a government shutdown which was set to begin at midnight. Lawmakers now have an extra week to come to a longer agreement which is expected to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year in September. The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it is expected to pass before President Trump signs it.
President Trump’s portrayal of an effort to funnel more Medicaid dollars to Puerto Rico as a "bailout" is complicating negotiations over a continuing resolution on the budget. "House Democrats are now requiring such assistance as a condition for supporting the continuing resolution," a position that the GOP leadership is amenable to. "But Mr. Trump’s apparent skepticism aligns him with conservative House Republicans inclined to view its request as a bailout, leaving the deal a narrow path to passage in Congress."
Democrats in the House are threatening to shut down the government if Republicans expedite a vote on a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, said Democratic House Whip Steny Hoyer Thursday. Lawmakers have introduced a one-week spending bill to give themselves an extra week to reach a long-term funding deal, which seemed poised to pass easily. However, the White House is pressuring House Republicans to take a vote on their Obamacare replacement Friday to give Trump a legislative victory, though it is still not clear that they have the necessary votes to pass the health care bill. This could go down to the wire.