What it is
Trans-resveratrol is a plant polyphenol. Foods, extracts, isolated trans-resveratrol and micronized preparations do not automatically provide the same exposure.
A PLANT POLYPHENOL, TESTED IN PEOPLE
Resveratrol.
Promising signals.
Not a longevity shortcut.
Resveratrol has produced encouraging metabolic and cognitive findings in selected groups. Other well-controlled trials found no benefit. The useful question is not whether it is “anti-aging,” but what it actually changed in people.
See the measured resultsIngredient and formulation research, not proof of finished-product results. Reviewed 10 September 2026.
THE RESULTS, IN PLAIN ENGLISH
A real metabolic signal, in a very small study.
The clearest way to read this result is modestly: an indirect insulin-resistance marker was lower during the resveratrol period. It does not tell us how much a particular person’s health would improve.
A lower insulin-resistance estimate
HOMA index • lower is favorable
03
UNDERSTANDING THE INGREDIENT
What the name does, and does not, tell you.
Why researchers care
Cell and animal work points to stress-response and metabolic pathways. A pathway is a reason to run a trial, not a measured benefit in people.
What stays unproven
More energy, fat loss, disease prevention and longer life require their own clinical outcomes. A higher dose or smaller particle size is not evidence of a larger benefit.
A CLOSER LOOK AT THE HUMAN RESEARCH
Read the result.
Keep the limits in view.
Positive findings, null results and reviews are shown together. Open any study for the population, dose, duration and limitations. Every summary is available without JavaScript.
TIMMERS · 2011 · CROSSOVER TRIAL
A small metabolic signal, not weight loss
Selected metabolic markers improved after a month of resveratrol. The study did not show weight loss. [1]
Study design, measured results and limitations
- Who and how
- Eleven otherwise healthy men with obesity received resVida trans-resveratrol, 150 mg daily, and placebo in two 30-day periods separated by a four-week washout. Each person acted as his own control. Participants kept their usual lifestyle.
- What changed
- At the end of the periods, HOMA index was 2.43 ± 0.24 with resveratrol and 2.80 ± 0.20 with placebo (mean ± SEM; n = 11; p = 0.03). Fasting insulin was 10.31 ± 1.25 versus 11.94 ± 1.11 mU/L (p = 0.04). Selected liver-fat, blood-pressure and muscle laboratory measures also favored resveratrol.
- What it means
- These are treatment-period endpoints, not a before-and-after fall. HOMA is an indirect insulin-resistance estimate. A direct whole-body insulin-sensitivity benefit could not be established. There was no weight loss or lower total 24-hour energy expenditure. This small, male-only study cannot establish prevention of diabetes or longer life. The branded study ingredient was not a Neurogan formula.
Read the source · Primary full text
POULSEN · 2013 · RANDOMIZED TRIAL
A higher dose did not reproduce the benefit
The primary insulin-sensitivity test did not improve with high-dose resveratrol. [2]
Study design, measured results and limitations
- Who and how
- Twenty-six men with obesity were enrolled; 24 completed, 12 per group. The parallel, double-blind trial compared trans-resveratrol 500 mg three times daily, or 1,500 mg/day, with placebo for four weeks. Insulin sensitivity was measured using a hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp.
- What changed
- No significant benefit was found for the primary insulin-sensitivity outcome, glucose metabolism, energy expenditure, blood pressure, body composition, liver fat or muscle fat. Insulin sensitivity deteriorated nonsignificantly in both groups.
- What it means
- A null result is not proof that every dose or population has no response. It is strong reason not to assume that more milligrams produce more benefit. The methods differ from the small Timmers crossover study, so this is not a direct dose-response comparison.
Read the source · Primary full text
THAUNG ZAW · 2021 · CROSSOVER TRIAL
A small cognitive-test benefit in postmenopausal women
Overall cognitive test performance favored resveratrol, with a small standardized effect. [3]
Study design, measured results and limitations
- Who and how
- The 24-month randomized crossover trial involved 125 postmenopausal women aged 45 to 85. Participants took trans-resveratrol 75 mg twice daily or placebo for 12 months, then crossed to the other treatment for another 12 months.
- What changed
- The primary overall cognitive-performance comparison favored resveratrol (Cohen’s d = 0.170; p = 0.005). Selected measures of brain blood-vessel responsiveness and insulin also favored treatment.
- What it means
- Cohen’s d is a standardized effect size, not percent better memory. The abstract’s relative percentage is not used as a consumer benefit estimate here. No dementia-prevention outcome was established. Applicability to men, younger adults or a high-dose micronized product is unresolved. The abstract was reviewed; complete endpoint-level attrition and variance were not independently recovered.
Read the source · Primary abstract
JEYARAMAN · 2020 · COCHRANE REVIEW
Why the diabetes reviews do not all agree
The tightly selected short trials did not establish a glucose-control benefit. [4]
Study design, measured results and limitations
- Who and how
- This systematic review included three randomized trials with 50 adults with type 2 diabetes. Resveratrol alone at 10, 150 or 1,000 mg/day was compared with placebo for four to five weeks. The search ended in December 2018.
- What changed
- Fasting glucose: mean difference +2 mg/dL, 95% CI −2 to +7 (two trials, 31 participants). Insulin resistance: mean difference −0.35, 95% CI −0.99 to +0.28 (two trials, 36 participants). Both intervals include no effect.
- What it means
- The evidence was very uncertain and brief. No conclusions about long-term diabetes complications, quality of life or mortality were possible. This older review is not the whole current evidence base; its stricter eligibility and short follow-up help explain differences from broader reviews.
Read the source · Systematic review, public summary
ABDELHALEEM AND COLLEAGUES · 2022 · META-ANALYSIS
A broader review found selected glucose benefits
A larger diabetes evidence pool was more favorable, but does not establish general wellness or longevity effects. [5]
Study design, measured results and limitations
- Who and how
- Seventeen randomized trials with 871 patients with type 2 diabetes were synthesized. Doses, durations and populations varied; the review examined dose and duration subgroups.
- What changed
- The abstract reports favorable fasting-glucose and total-cholesterol results in the subgroup receiving at least 500 mg/day, and favorable HbA1c results at three months. These are selected outcome/subgroup findings, not a guarantee across all doses and endpoints.
- What it means
- This page does not graph the abstract’s numerical subgroup estimates because endpoint-level denominators, heterogeneity and units were not fully verified from primary tables. A pooled diabetes effect cannot be transferred to healthy adults, a specific capsule, or disease prevention. Reviews overlap in the trials they include and are not extra independent clinical experiments.
Read the source · Systematic review, abstract
This is a selected evidence review, not an exhaustive systematic review of every possible use. A review can contain the trials shown above; those are not additional independent experiments. A p-value describes statistical evidence, not the size or importance of a benefit.
FROM THE STUDY TO THE LABEL
Compare the actual formulation.
Current catalog labels are product information, not independent proof of efficacy, identity, potency or bioequivalence. No finished Neurogan product below was the intervention in the cited trials.
Resveratrol Capsules
Supplement Facts: 1,400 mg micronized trans-resveratrol per two-capsule serving.
Directions: Directions say one capsule each morning, equivalent to 700 mg, not the full labeled serving. The label and directions use different serving amounts.
Research comparison: The 150 mg resVida trials used a lower dose and different preparation. Micronization and a higher dose do not establish greater benefit.
Current product listing · Original label image
View the label used for this comparison
This is the label image linked by the live product record when reviewed on 10 September 2026.
Serving size and daily directions are listed separately. A dose similarity is not evidence that a different formula produces the same outcomes.
Labels and listings can change. Check the package you receive and discuss individual use with a qualified clinician.
NAD + Resveratrol Capsules
Supplement Facts: Two capsules: 600 mg nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide plus 600 mg micronized trans-resveratrol.
Directions: Directions: two capsules daily. The 1,200 mg total is the sum of two ingredients, not 1,200 mg NAD+.
Research comparison: Direct NAD+, not NMN or NR. One marketing-image alt text mentions NMN, but Supplement Facts names NAD. No matching combination trial was identified.
Current product listing · Original label image
View the label used for this comparison
This is the label image linked by the live product record when reviewed on 10 September 2026.
Serving size and daily directions are listed separately. A dose similarity is not evidence that a different formula produces the same outcomes.
Labels and listings can change. Check the package you receive and discuss individual use with a qualified clinician.
SAFETY AND REALISTIC EXPECTATIONS
Short trials cannot settle long-term safety.
Concentrated resveratrol can cause gastrointestinal symptoms and may increase bleeding risk with anticoagulants or antiplatelet medicines. Potential drug-metabolism interactions and hormone-sensitive conditions warrant clinician review. Tell the surgical team before a procedure. People receiving cancer treatment should discuss it with their oncology team; safety findings in healthy adults do not settle safety during treatment. Pregnancy, breastfeeding and use in children are not established by these studies.
How to use this review responsibly
This page is educational, not a diagnosis, treatment plan or individualized dose recommendation. Do not stop prescribed treatment or replace established care on the basis of a biomarker result. “No significant difference” does not prove two treatments are equivalent, and “well tolerated” in a small trial does not rule out rare harms.
Bring the full ingredient list, medicines and health history to a clinician or pharmacist. In a blend, the safety question concerns every ingredient together, not only the name on the front label.
REFERENCES AND ACCESS
Follow the evidence.
Links lead to primary publications or systematic reviews. Access limitations are stated rather than filled with assumed methods or outcomes. Product comparisons use the live product records and linked label images above.
TIMMERS · 2011 · CROSSOVER TRIAL
A small metabolic signal, not weight loss. Access reviewed: Primary full text.
Open publication · Return to study summaryPOULSEN · 2013 · RANDOMIZED TRIAL
A higher dose did not reproduce the benefit. Access reviewed: Primary full text.
Open publication · Return to study summaryTHAUNG ZAW · 2021 · CROSSOVER TRIAL
A small cognitive-test benefit in postmenopausal women. Access reviewed: Primary abstract.
Open publication · Return to study summaryJEYARAMAN · 2020 · COCHRANE REVIEW
Why the diabetes reviews do not all agree. Access reviewed: Systematic review, public summary.
Open publication · Return to study summaryABDELHALEEM AND COLLEAGUES · 2022 · META-ANALYSIS
A broader review found selected glucose benefits. Access reviewed: Systematic review, abstract.
Open publication · Return to study summary