The infancy continues.

About 17 years ago in the magazine that bears his name, John Parrillo, wrote: "Nutrition is a fascinating field. It's one of the few areas of science where highly trained experts with vast clinical experience can completely disagree about even fundamental concepts."This disagreement suggests nutrition science is still in its infancy."But if consensus is required for maturation, nutrition science's "infancy" will never abate. A review of the research done on resveratrol will explain why.When first discovered to be an antioxidant, resveratrol, a natural compound found in grapes, was found to protect against conditions that lead to aging. For instance, a 2001 study performed on lab rats at Creighton University and published in the journal Drugs Under Experimental Clinical Research determined doses of resveratrol could be as effective as hormone replacement therapy without HRT's possible side effects stroke, gallbladder disease, endometrial, uterine, and breast cancer. Resveratrol also protected against osteoporosis and heart disease.Because it was found to reduce the incidence of heart disease, resveratrol earned the reputation as the reason for the "French Paradox," why the French had a lower rate of mortality from heart disease than expected based on the amount of fat they eat and the number of cigarettes they smoke.In subsequent research, resveratrol was found to battle diabetes and Alzheimer's disease. Later, Harvard Medical School research validated previous research that claimed resveratrol reduced aging by discovering how: Resveratrol activates a gene that regenerates mitochondria what produces energy for the cells.All the while, sales of the supplement soared.According to William Reed Business Media, Americans spent $2.4 million on resveratrol in 2006. By 2011, a Frost & Sullivan report claimed the figure had increased to about $45 million a number more than 18 times the 2006 figure.By 2012, however, the journal Cell Metabolism published a study questioning the efficacy of resveratrol. For 12 weeks, 15 healthy women approaching 60 years of age took 75 milligrams of resveratrol daily. A placebo was administered to 14 other women in the same age range.Subsequent tests found no health benefits for those taking resveratrol. Body fat and inflammation did not lessen, resting metabolic rate did not improve, and blood-fat levels remained the same.Critics of the test claimed the dosage needed to be at least doubled to elicit benefits.But the July 2013 publication of The Journal of Physiology printed a truly disturbing study. Performed on 27 men in good health around 65 years of age, University of Copenhagen researchers found that a daily 250-milligram dose of resveratrol did not produce the cardiovascular benefits found in prior experiments on lab animals. Worse, the researchers recorded health benefits from the control group's workouts the lowering of cholesterol and blood pressure that could not be found in the resveratrol takers even though they were also exercising.Somehow the supplement had negated the cardiovascular good that comes from exercise. As a result, the researchers declared that resveratrol supplementation was not only ineffective but also potentially dangerous.So what are you to make of such conflicting research?Studies have repeatedly found differences between ingesting a substance in its natural state in foods as compared to pills, so I believe it's safe to say that eating grapes or drinking moderate amounts of wine will not negate the cardiovascular benefits of exercise.Primarily, I presented this conflicting information on resveratrol to you to reestablish a few things stressed in previous columns.First, health has become a big business, and businesses become healthy, not by making you healthy, but by increasing their profit margin. Because of this potential conflict of interest, you should never take a supplement without doing research on it, and your efforts should include a protracted attempt to find any and all negatives.Second, expect conflicting reports on even the most innocuous supplements, even vitamin C. A skillful yet underhanded researcher can create a study that just about guarantees a certain result, be it positive or negative.Third, once you take a supplement, value what it is doing for you more than results from studies. One of the key ingredients in a workout supplement I take, coenzyme Q 10, has been found in a number of studies to do little to aid athletic performance.But when I periodically stop taking the supplement so my body doesn't grow too accustomed to it, I experience a difference.My legs feel heavier on a Monday after a weekend of long and hard riding. The warm-up at the beginning of Tuesday's ride needs to be longer, too.So I dismiss studies claiming there's no ergogenic benefit to coenzyme Q 10.Personal experience trumps research.