• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
LongeCity .                       Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * - 16 votes

Nicotinamide Riboside [Curated]

nicotinamide riboside nicotinamide nad boosting charles brenner david sinclair leonard guarente niagen niacinamide nicotinamide mononucleotide

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2262 replies to this topic

#1561 HappyPaul

  • Registered User
  • 22 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Boston

Posted 16 November 2016 - 06:20 PM

For just P&G and NR 24 hits

 

http://www.freepaten...mit=&patents=on

 

For just NR 440 hits 

 

http://www.freepaten...mit=&patents=on

 

 

 



#1562 Nate-2004

  • Member
  • 1,216 posts
  • 125
  • Location:Philadelphia
  • NO

Posted 16 November 2016 - 06:24 PM

 

 

Proctor and Gamble file for patent...

 

http://www.freepaten...16/0317419.html

 

 

Great find! At the moment NR is only stable as a salt. Do we see a water or emulsive base for NR yet? When this happens watch out. 

 

 

Crossing fingers. The stability degrades after about 6 hrs right? I assume this degrades into nicotinamide and ribose? 

 

I've been using it topically but have to mix it before each application so that it's stable. You can do this with hyaluronic acid water based gel or Cerave lotion which I think is mostly water based.

 

As for patents. I hate them with a passion.


Edited by Nate-2004, 16 November 2016 - 06:51 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#1563 HappyPaul

  • Registered User
  • 22 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Boston

Posted 16 November 2016 - 06:49 PM

This one from P&G published Nov 10 is just NR http://www.freepaten...16178945A1.html

 

WIPO Patent Application WO/2016/178945
Kind Code:
A1
Abstract:
A cosmetic method for reducing glycation rate in skin by topically applying a cosmetic composition that includes an effective amount of nicotinamide riboside to a target portion of skin during a treatment period. The treatment period is sufficient for the nicotinamide ribosidecontaining composition to improve the appearance of sallow-looking skin caused by glycation. In particular, the method enables a reduction in skin yellowness related to glycation.

 



#1564 lost69

  • Member
  • 78 posts
  • 0
  • Location:italy

Posted 17 November 2016 - 12:02 AM

 

 

 

Proctor and Gamble file for patent...

 

http://www.freepaten...16/0317419.html

 

 

Great find! At the moment NR is only stable as a salt. Do we see a water or emulsive base for NR yet? When this happens watch out. 

 

 

Crossing fingers. The stability degrades after about 6 hrs right? I assume this degrades into nicotinamide and ribose? 

 

I've been using it topically but have to mix it before each application so that it's stable. You can do this with hyaluronic acid water based gel or Cerave lotion which I think is mostly water based.

 

As for patents. I hate them with a passion.

 

 

does this work on skin appearance//color?how many 100mg pills do you mix in Cerave lotion and how do you mix?

thanks


  • Informative x 1

#1565 Oakman

  • Member
  • 328 posts
  • 193
  • Location:CO

Posted 17 November 2016 - 02:28 PM

This >  https://patentscope....=PCTDescription

 

describes just about everything in detail related to concocting NR topical compositions (except as noted in the P&G patent of preserving them).

 

And finally (to me anyway) it describes just what good pterostilbene combined with NR is good for, among several other compounds it can be combined with for various purposes.

 

Time to get out the old test tubes and play mad scientist :cool:        

 

 



#1566 StanG

  • Member
  • 28 posts
  • 7
  • Location:Montgomery County MD
  • NO

Posted 17 November 2016 - 10:35 PM

I wonder if supplements like NR in combination with others mentioned in P&G's patent have some of the same benefit to skin cells when taken orally as I already do? Any thoughts?



sponsored ad

  • Advert
To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#1567 Iporuru

  • Registered User
  • 94 posts
  • 111
  • Location:Europe

Posted 19 November 2016 - 09:54 AM

NAD+ supplementation normalises central carbon metabolism in skeletal muscle: a mechanistic insight into the energetic consequences of age-related NAD+ decline

http://www.endocrine.../ea0044P187.htm

 

 

Mechanisms of ageing metabolic decline revealed by targeted metabolomics and energy metabolism in NAD+ depleted skeletal muscle

http://www.endocrine.../ea0044P189.htm

 


  • Informative x 3

#1568 Harkijn

  • Registered User
  • 308 posts
  • 75
  • Location:Amsterdam
  • NO

Posted 19 November 2016 - 10:20 AM

NAD+ supplementation normalises central carbon metabolism in skeletal muscle: a mechanistic insight into the energetic consequences of age-related NAD+ decline

http://www.endocrine.../ea0044P187.htm

 

 

Mechanisms of ageing metabolic decline revealed by targeted metabolomics and energy metabolism in NAD+ depleted skeletal muscle

http://www.endocrine.../ea0044P189.htm

 

Thanks Iporuru, especially the first abstract drew my interest because it touches on the possibility to overload on NAD+. That is a subject mentioned before in this thread. I tried to read the whole research report in an effort to understand what the authors talk about. However: DOI not found.

I hope one or more of the informed members will be able  to weigh in  on this issue?



#1569 Bryan_S

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 1,154 posts
  • 363
  • Location:Orlando

Posted 20 November 2016 - 06:48 PM

Thanks Iporuru, especially the first abstract drew my interest because it touches on the possibility to overload on NAD+. That is a subject mentioned before in this thread. I tried to read the whole research report in an effort to understand what the authors talk about. However: DOI not found.

 

 

I hope one or more of the informed members will be able  to weigh in  on this issue?

 

 

These appear to have been live presentations. I looked up the DOI also and could not find them either.

 

Regulation of oxidative phosphorylation

- excess NADH, ADP & O2 will speed up the ETC
- excess NAD+ & ATP slows down the ETC
 
I think this would be a difficult state to replicate in a whole organism without massive dosing and from a human dosing standpoint a cost prohibited one. However in a test tube environment its likely you could produce this state. If I read the context of the abstract correctly it appeared they were talking about in vitro evidence of isolated cells using NMR spectroscopy to determine reaction states. 


#1570 Thell

  • Registered User
  • 54 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Arkansas
  • NO

Posted 21 November 2016 - 04:45 PM

A review article was recently posted in Sven's Science Column and featured on the Longecity Community Blog.

 

http://www.longecity...amide-riboside/

 

I didn't see anything that followers of this thread would find new but it could serve as a summation way-point.



#1571 Iporuru

  • Registered User
  • 94 posts
  • 111
  • Location:Europe

Posted 22 November 2016 - 09:16 AM

An interesting new book on sirtuins to appear in December: https://books.google...epage&q&f=false



#1572 Mike C

  • Registered User
  • 75 posts
  • 13

Posted 22 November 2016 - 08:40 PM

However, it should be pointed out that one study found that NR supplementation decreased exercise performance in normal rats by 35% (Kourtzidis et al., 2016recycling (see image 2) (Frederick et al., 2016). However, it should be pointed out that one study found that NR supplementation decreased exercise performance in normal rats by 35% (Kourtzidis et al., 2016

That study should be replicated because that is very negative if true! Exercise capacity is vigoursley, pun intended, associated with health/longevity. Anything that diminishes that is something I want no parts of!!!

Edited by Mike C, 22 November 2016 - 08:41 PM.


#1573 midas

  • Registered User
  • 351 posts
  • 72
  • Location:Manchester....UK
  • NO

Posted 22 November 2016 - 10:24 PM

However, it should be pointed out that one study found that NR supplementation decreased exercise performance in normal rats by 35% (Kourtzidis et al., 2016recycling (see image 2) (Frederick et al., 2016). However, it should be pointed out that one study found that NR supplementation decreased exercise performance in normal rats by 35% (Kourtzidis et al., 2016

That study should be replicated because that is very negative if true! Exercise capacity is vigoursley, pun intended, associated with health/longevity. Anything that diminishes that is something I want no parts of!!!

 

That review is very scrappy anyway.......Who wrote that!.....

 

The fact that this is included when it has been tested to be safe in humans is a little over the top if you ask me....."Also the reduced exercise performance in rats fed NR is a warning that we shouldn’t implement NR supplementation in healthy humans as of yet"

 

There are plenty of people taking NR and I think one thing you will find is that no one has complained about reduced exercise ability... I have more energy now than I had before taking NR so it's quite the opposite for me.


Edited by midas, 22 November 2016 - 10:31 PM.

  • Agree x 6

#1574 Bryan_S

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • 1,154 posts
  • 363
  • Location:Orlando

Posted 23 November 2016 - 04:14 AM

However, it should be pointed out that one study found that NR supplementation decreased exercise performance in normal rats by 35% (Kourtzidis et al., 2016recycling (see image 2) (Frederick et al., 2016). However, it should be pointed out that one study found that NR supplementation decreased exercise performance in normal rats by 35% (Kourtzidis et al., 2016

That study should be replicated because that is very negative if true! Exercise capacity is vigoursley, pun intended, associated with health/longevity. Anything that diminishes that is something I want no parts of!!!

 

http://jissn.biomedc...2970-016-0143-x

 

Lets just say the study was a little underfunded and largely ignored.

http://www.longecity...-35#entry784963

 

On rats, lets see what happens with humans. Here is where the experiment got replicated, it should be wrapping up soon.

Thorne Research Announces Clinical Study to Assess Nicotinamide Riboside on Brain NAD+ in College Football Players


Edited by Bryan_S, 23 November 2016 - 04:19 AM.

  • Informative x 1
  • Cheerful x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1575 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 3,121 posts
  • 698
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 23 November 2016 - 07:45 PM

Hi Bryan,

 

You and richard hnry posted this on another thread:

http://www.cell.com/...1247(15)01347-9

 

If we were zebra fish, would you think NR might also have issues with this neural degeneration syndrome?

 

I am just asking because of how NMN is related, 

 

[update]

 

From your interview here, it might be an issue with NR as well... (See minute 15, 58 seconds)

https://youtu.be/WItMH3PzIk4?t=15m58s

 

A


Edited by Anthony_Loera, 23 November 2016 - 08:14 PM.

  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 2
  • Informative x 1

#1576 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 3,121 posts
  • 698
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 23 November 2016 - 07:50 PM

I've been a long time lurker on this thread, I get email updates for every post and I've followed this topic closely.
I want to give Kudo's to Bryan. What he's doing isn't easy. I for one get annoyed with those that continually try to hijack the thread with their own pet topics. He's done a fair and necessary job as moderator.
Start your own thread topic f you don't like Bryan's focus.
I've been taking 500 mg per day in divided doses. I altered my intake to 250mg twice a day after watching Bryan's interview.
Ok, all that being said I'll go back to reading to the updates unless I have something useful to add......

 

 

That sounds interesting...

can you provide a link to Bryans interview?

 

I have been away for a while, and would like to check it out.

A



#1577 Anthony_Loera

  • Lifetime Member
  • 3,121 posts
  • 698
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 23 November 2016 - 07:57 PM

Is this the one? Thanks

 

A



#1578 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 997 posts
  • 1,404
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 24 November 2016 - 08:30 PM

All:
 

(Pardon the hash created by the Forum's ridiculous quote-function restrictions below...)

 

Michael Rae ... only believes in CR as an anti aging protocol.


That is, of course, untrue. Lots of things work as anti-aging therapies in rodents (rapamycin, CR, true methionine restriction, various mutations in the IGF-1 pathway,  SIRT6 overexpression, etc); unfortunately, most of them are not practicable by humans. If we're talking about things that are both reasonably well-supported as anti-aging interventions in other mammalian species and practicable by humans, then certainly the case is strongest for CR (tho' even there, saying that I "believe in it" is an overstatement of my confidence), but rapamycin is very promising if we can identify a dose that is both reasonably safe and effective, and there's reason for optimism on a few other drugs and supplements.
 
Kevnzworld said: Michael Rae is biased. ... He dismisses research that doesn't fit his world view.

No, I dismiss conclusions drawn from research that is claimed to show things it doesn't show. Most notably, I dismiss the imputation of anti-aging effects to compounds based on lifespan studies carried out in obese and/or diabetic and/or mutant and/or toxin-administered and/or poorly-husbanded animals with abnormally short baseline lifespan. Again: the historical benchmark for lifespan in genetically normal, well-nourished, nonobese, well-cared-for laboratory mice is ≈850 d mean and ~1100 d max (10th-decile survivorship). The fact that some compound partially normalizes the lifespan of animals that for whatever reason lives an abnormally-short life to  begin with in no way validates it as an anti-aging therapy. Gleevec and combination antiretroviral therapies have dramatically increased the life expectancies of CML and HIV/AIDS patients (respectively) is not evidence that they should be taken by healthy normal people for life extension.
 
Kevnzworld said: The study that showed that diabetic people on Metformin outlived non diabetics being one example.

That study is flawed, as Prophets (and, prior to him, I) have pointed out. Meanwhile, metformin has been found not to extend lifespan in normal, well-fed, nonobese, well-cared-for, non-genetically-FUBARed rodents in four separate lifespan studies carried out in seven separate expert labs, a randomized clinical trial (not flawed epidemiology) has found that metformin is of little benefit in nondiabetic humans at high cardiovascular risk, and metformin is inferior to modest diet and exercise changes in people with elevated fasting glucose or impaired glucose tolerance.

Kevnzworld said: He has not read or studied the research on NR/NAD .
 
I'm not sure where you got that impression; it's mistaken, as Prophets has already pointed out.
 

Michael Rae is certainly very opinionated.  He has a very strong view of CR vs. "everything else", but he seems pretty data driven.  His opinions aren't without merit.  In a message forum full of incomplete information and an Internet full of hucksters pushing supplements, I think his thought process is excellent, even if he seems somewhat close minded on non-CR interventions given the high threshold of "proof" he seems to require.


I think that's reasonably fair, though there's an obvious conflict between the perception that I "seem somewhat close-minded on non-CR interventions" and noting the "high threshold of "proof" [' I would say "evidence"]" I require to take something seriously as a potential anti-aging intervention. And actually, I don't think my evidentiary threshold is all that high: it's just that the evidentiary threshold accepted by life extension hopefuls is often low, or they aren't aware that their own standards aren't being met.
 
Prophets said: It'd be interesting to see if he had updated thoughts and was following some of the more recent publications like Zhang, Auwerx (2016), et. al. that seem to indicate life extension properties.
 
krwBVJi.png


Attentive readers will already have guessed what I'm going to point out here. While there was a nominal difference between the two groups' median lifespans, both groups' median lifespans were still well within the normal zone for healthy mice. The authors don't report maximum (tenth-decile) survivorship, an increase in which relative to normal, healthy controls is the sine qua non of an anti-aging intervention, but you can see right from the survival curves that this doesn't cut it: the very last control animal died at age ≈960 days (700 days (see legend to Figure 6) + an eyeballed 260 d from the graph)), and the last treated animal died at age ≈1010 days: ie, the controls were abnormally short-lived, and the treated animals on the low side of normal. This is already clear just from looking at the shape of the survival curve itself, which is clearly not rectangular: from ≈850 days onward, both groups were clearly suffering abnormal early attrition. It would have been nice to have been able to see the survival curves throughout the adult LS instead of just from initiation of treatment.


  • Informative x 5
  • like x 3
  • Good Point x 2
  • Disagree x 1

#1579 bluemoon

  • Registered User
  • 465 posts
  • 30
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 26 November 2016 - 12:17 AM

I watched Michael in a 2008 TED talk and thought  he was 1) a zealot about CR and 2) sloppy at times. He works for Aubrey de Gray but said that de Gray said "escape velocity is 25 years away". No, De Gray said he thought there was a 50-50 chance that it was 25 years away, which is a huge difference. OK, a slip, but he was making a dramatic point to the audience how almost no one will "make it." So he should at least have his facts straight about what his guru said.

 

Michael has no science background whatsoever, and that should be kept in mind. Rae is a cheerleader, and we need those.


  • Agree x 2
  • Off-Topic x 2
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • Cheerful x 1

#1580 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 997 posts
  • 1,404
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 26 November 2016 - 12:48 AM

All:
 
Here's a great party trick: run into an argument whose conclusions you don't like, but against which you have no counterargument? No problem! Ignore the argument, and attack the person making it.
 

I watched Michael in a 2008 TED talk


That's a pretty neat trick, since I've never done a TED talk. I suspect you're thinking of the few minutes of non-contiguous excerpts from a 2008 IdeaCity presentation I did that are available online, since IdeaCity loosely resembles the TED format.
 

I and thought  he was 1) a zealot about CR and 2) sloppy at times. He works for Aubrey de Gray


You mean, when attended the wrong event, I also misspelled the name of my boss? That's pretty sloppy, I have to agree.
 

but said that de Gray said "escape velocity is 25 years away". No, De Gray said he thought there was a 50-50 chance that it was 25 years away, which is a huge difference.


I explain this to people literally about once a week, as well as the fact that even that is contingent on still-forthcoming funding. Again, you're jumping to conclusions as a result of lacking context, having seen only short excerpts from my talk.
 

OK, a slip, but he was making a dramatic point to the audience how almost no one will "make it." So he should at least have his facts straight about what his guru said.

 
First, again you're just mistaken in thinking that I firmly asserted a hard 25-year takeoff timeline. But in any case, if you think about this for even half a second, you'll realize that that would be self-defeating, not clever rhetoric: the earlier I suggest Escape Velocity will arrive, the less imperative it is to gain a slow-aging advantage to make the cut.
 
Bluemoon said: Michael has no science background whatsoever, and that should be kept in mind. Rae is a cheerleader, and we need those.

I have no experience as a working bench scientist, because I discovered early on that I'm no better in the lab than I am at home renovation. That's hardly the same thing as having "no science background whatsoever," and it has no relevance to the soundness of my arguments.


  • Good Point x 3
  • Off-Topic x 2
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • Agree x 1

#1581 bluemoon

  • Registered User
  • 465 posts
  • 30
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 26 November 2016 - 04:07 AM

You know, I didn't nitpick his 2008 presentation when he throws around "exponentially downward curve" without any idea what an exponential is. What is his science background? Nothing. 

 

He says in this presentation that "It hasn't been since 1950 since we've made much change" in longevity which is way off as around 6 years have been added in the past 60 years apart from an increase due to lower childhood mortality.   

 

I don't think Rae remembers his statement about De Gray at 4:10 in the link below. "He doesn't say 10 years, he says 25! (laughs)" Again, no he doesnt. He said a 50-50 chance of 25 years , which is worlds apart from Rae's misquote.

 

By the way, my undergrad degrees are in physics and mathematics - no biologist here! :)  What is your science background, Michael since you implied above that you have a science background of some sort, so can you tell us what it is? I think nothing since high school. Again, I applaud your cheerleading because that does help.

 

Here is a short 7 minute version of his 15 minute talk in 2008. Please tell me where I have been wrong or misleading.

 


  • Off-Topic x 4
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#1582 midas

  • Registered User
  • 351 posts
  • 72
  • Location:Manchester....UK
  • NO

Posted 26 November 2016 - 07:49 PM

Metabolic control of muscle and muscle stem cell function

 

https://infoscience....h/record/223053


  • Informative x 3

#1583 sthira

  • Member
  • 1,623 posts
  • 295

Posted 26 November 2016 - 09:11 PM

Sheesh. Ya know, we've seen many great minds and writers and thinkers chased away in frustration from this (formerly more awesome) longevity site due to easy ad hom attacks like that one expressed above by blue moon.

Hey: wide angle lens: we're all in this frozen anti-aging drama together: nothing now slows, stops, or reverses aging yet: nothing: no matter how hard we dream and how much we'd like for some simple solution like a pill or a lifestyle behavior to do it: it ain't there. We're innocent babes. And vulnerable, we need all the objective, focused thinkers who aren't pushing some product on us for their own personal stock market gains, or whatever.

Michael Rae has contributed a huge amount of unbiased thought regarding the unpopular "science" of lifespan extension. I do have a biology degree and background, and I'm unable to follow along anywhere near as well as he does. Who has time to calmly investigate the many overly-optimistic claims brought to market by these for-profit-only supplement companies? One after another these companies -- they know they have us in a corner, they know they have a captive audience willing to spend, they know people are desperate and suffering -- and so they're eagerly making money off of our ignorance and despair.

And before I sway this back onto topic, consider this: Donald Trump has expressed sharp disdain for the US FDA, for the consumer regulatory process in general (since it protects consumers from predatory, dishonest corporations), and if he and the right wing are successful in relaxing consumer protection laws, we're gonna need help. We're gonna need to rely more often on unbiased thinkers like Rae to point out the relevant peer reviewed science that many of us are too busy to chase, to break down, and to figure out the difference between what's fake news and what's real. Fraud and hucksterism pervades the supplement industry, and with retarded regulation ahead, more fraud and hucksterism is likely headed our way.

The Longecity community should be encouraging thinkers -- Michael Rae is a SENS insider with valuable info to pass along -- don't push him out of these fora. Who gives a crap about Michael Rae's "science background" when he writes so coherently and well (backed with thorough references for nearly every post)?

Swerving the topic back onto ChromaDex's Niagen, I've still not seen answered -- despite the many studies posted here in this thread -- some basic questions presented by Rae here: http://www.sens.org/...ng-mitochondria

If you don't feel like reading that simple text, here are the issues:

(1) "...[I]t must be clarified that the substance used in the Harvard research was not actually NR, but another compound called nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN). But NMN is unsuitable for oral supplementation, as it is rapidly hydrolyzed in the intestine, so the Harvard researchers (like a previous team of scientists from the Washington University School of Medicine at St. Louis and others thereafter) injected their mice with NMN rather than giving it to them in their feed...."

(2) "...[M]any supplement vendors assert or imply that the results with NMN can also be gained with NR. Promoters of NR also point to studies showing that NR yields improvements in metabolic health in rodent models of diabetic obesity promoted by a high-fat/high sugar diet that are similar to those reported for injected NMN. These vendors furthermore note positive results of NR supplementation in mouse models of genetic neurological and mitochondrial disorders, and in mice genetically engineered to develop liver cancer..."

(3) "...[N]o study has actually been done demonstrating that NR has similar effects to NMN in the muscles of otherwise-healthy aging mice. In fact, one study found that high-dose NR supplementation was unable to increase NAD+­ levels in muscle tissue or the mitochondrial fraction of normal, healthy mice...."

(4) "...Moreover, even if NR supplements do provide an immediate jolt to muscle mitochondrial metabolism in the way that the Harvard NMN studies suggest, it’s not clear that doing so is a good idea in the long term. NMN injections don’t improve mitochondrial function by repairing molecular damage wrought by the aging process in the organelles, nor in other cells and biomolecules whose damage with age results in a dampening-down of mitochondrial activity..."

(5) "...Instead, NMN injections leave the existing damage in place, and induce the still-functional mitochondria to work harder and pump out more energy. This is rather like pushing harder on the gas pedal when your car is not running at full power due to damage to its cams and push rods: it may make the car go faster in the short term, but the underlying damage hasn’t been fixed, and will likely get even worse from the excessive wear..."

(6) "...Because the Harvard study of NMN-treated mice only lasted a week, it did not examine the long-term effects of NMN treatment on the mice. Previous studies with other dietary supplements, however, have revealed that the potential for such effects does exist and cannot be neglected in risk/benefit evaluations...."

(7) "...It’s also important for readers of the press coverage of the Harvard report to understand just what was involved when such stories reported that NMN treatment “reversed the effects of aging” on the mice’s muscles. Readers would be forgiven for imagining the muscles of frail, elderly mice suddenly swelling to youthful size, able to perform tiny rodent bench presses with the strength and endurance of much younger animals. In reality, though, as the investigators were careful to point out in the original scientific paper, while their treated animals’ muscle cells exhibited biochemical evidence of improved (“rejuvenated”) metabolism and insulin-stimulated glucose uptake, “we did not observe an improvement in muscle strength (data not shown), indicating that 1 week of treatment might not be sufficient to reverse whole-organism aging and that longer treatments might be required.”

(8) "...Additionally, interpretation of the Harvard report is greatly hampered by the lack of information of the animals’ weight or food intake, which raises the possibility of effects mediated by Calorie restriction or (contrariwise) by the simple overfeeding of all the animals in the study.

(9) "Also, an earlier report by Dr. Shin-ichiro Imai of the Washington University School of Medicine at St. Louis, who was a pioneer in working with this compound, had identified some gender-discordant effects of NMN on glucose metabolism, and unfortunately the Harvard report does not disclose the sex of the animals. In fact, some of the reported findings in the new report seem to be contradicted by Dr. Imai’s earlier studies. It will be good to see these issues clarified and ironed out in future research."

(10) "....The studies showing benefits of NR supplementation in mouse models of disease have used doses of 400-500 milligrams of NR per kilogram of mouse body weight. Even after adjusting for the different metabolic rates of mice and humans, an approximate equivalent adult dose would range from 2000 to 4000 milligrams of NR per day. Commercially-available NR supplements contain between 75 and 125 mg NR per capsule, at a cost of roughly 0.6-0.8 cents per milligram of NR; to experiment with even the lower end of the human-equivalent dosage range would thus involve swallowing 18-30 NR pills a day, at a cost of $400-550 a month."

Has any progress been made here? Maybe some progress has been made here, and I've just missed it? This is a very long thread indeed.

Focus this thread on answering some of dat shit, man, instead of pulling up some speech from 2008 (which, btw, I still can't wrap my head around the fact that Michael Rae is "six feet tall and weighs 115 pounds..." Is that shit still true?! Damned! people tell me I'm way to skinny and I'm 6'2" 145....

Appeal: don't blow this light-heavy weight away with more rudeness because when you do, the entire community here loses. And we've seen that ugliness happen to many great contributors in the past, sadly & repeatedly
  • Agree x 5
  • Informative x 1

#1584 bluemoon

  • Registered User
  • 465 posts
  • 30
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 26 November 2016 - 09:36 PM

Sheesh. Ya know, we've seen many great minds and writers and thinkers chased away in frustration from this (formerly more awesome) longevity site due to easy ad hom attacks like that one expressed above by blue moon.   

 

Please look up the meaning of "ad hominem."  There was no ad hominem attack anywhere in my posts. I pointed out some of the basics that Michael Rae got wrong, like no increase in longevity since 1950 apart from reduction in childhood deaths. Nobody has been "chased away."


  • Disagree x 4
  • Agree x 3
  • Off-Topic x 1
  • dislike x 1

#1585 midas

  • Registered User
  • 351 posts
  • 72
  • Location:Manchester....UK
  • NO

Posted 26 November 2016 - 09:37 PM

(1) "...[I]t must be clarified that the substance used in the Harvard research was not actually NR, but another compound called nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN). But NMN is unsuitable for oral supplementation, as it is rapidly hydrolyzed in the intestine, so the Harvard researchers (like a previous team of scientists from the Washington University School of Medicine at St. Louis and others thereafter) injected their mice with NMN rather than giving it to them in their feed...."

 

The new study shows that when NMN is dissolved in drinking water and given to mice, it appears in the bloodstream in less than three minutes. Importantly, the researchers also found that NMN in the blood is quickly converted to NAD in multiple tissues.

 

https://medicine.wus...g-healthy-mice/

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(3) "...[N]o study has actually been done demonstrating that NR has similar effects to NMN in the muscles of otherwise-healthy aging mice. In fact, one study found that high-dose NR supplementation was unable to increase NAD+­ levels in muscle tissue or the mitochondrial fraction of normal, healthy mice...."

 

https://infoscience....h/record/223053

 


  • Informative x 2

#1586 sthira

  • Member
  • 1,623 posts
  • 295

Posted 26 November 2016 - 11:05 PM

Ok, yep, it's a rainy cold grey (not de Gray) Saturday here in a cozy coffee shop in a gentrified neighborhood so I guess we'll have to stay off topic for a bit -- do chuck thesesesese ssilly posts out the backdoor when ya can -- but meanwhile, yes thank you, bluemoon maybe I indeed don't know the def of "ad hominem" blah bleh this'll go fucking nowhere but hey cheer up: https://en.m.wikiped...wiki/Ad_hominem

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Is this an example of ad hominem?

I watched Michael in a 2008 TED talk and thought he was 1) a zealot about CR and 2) sloppy at times."


So if I called you a sloppy zealot to you in person you wouldn't punch me in the face?

Ok so then do these two little swipes rise over the high bar def?

Michael has no science background whatsoever, and that should be kept in mind. Rae is a cheerleader, and we need those.


I say 1+1=3 and you say naw man that shit ain't right because you have no maths background whatsoever. And, furthermore, you're a cheerleader (which I admit is an compliment, actually, since cheerleaders are amazing athletes). But you've said he's a (verbal) cheerleader for his guru, so I don't know, man, that sounds not very friendly to me.

Ok, I'm still not reaching you; but this'll be over soon, I promise; then we'll hug and purchase more Niagen and finally -- oh thank god finally -- we'll stop all metabolic and gravitational aging damage with NR

But imagine you're there enjoying your coffee and I walk up, sit down, hi, hey, we talk, we eventually disagree about NR, and then you say:

....[You] throw around "exponentially downward curve" without any idea what an exponential is. What is [your] science background? Nothing.


This isn't mean? Even after too much caffeine you prob wouldn't say this to anyone in person, would you?

By the way, my undergrad degrees are in physics and mathematics - no biologist here! :) What is your science background, Michael since you implied above that you have a science background of some sort, so can you tell us what it is? I think nothing since high school. Again, I applaud your cheerleading because that does help.


Now your turn! Please tell me next how I'm still not understanding common words and phrases!

Also, I do think talking unkindly to and about people "chases them away..." and in this case you've met those standards at least according to me.

Believe it or not, I, too, would like to keep reading about NR. I'm just tired of being hoodwinked by these companies making false promises ahead of the science to we the people.

And I'd like to see more writing from Michael Rae here, not less. Hence my slathering sloppy cheerleaderism haha
  • Agree x 1

#1587 prophets

  • Registered User, Advisor
  • 2,112 posts
  • 330
  • Location:US

Posted 26 November 2016 - 11:22 PM

 

 

Please look up the meaning of "ad hominem."  There was no ad hominem attack anywhere in my posts. I pointed out some of the basics that Michael Rae got wrong, like no increase in longevity since 1950 apart from reduction in childhood deaths. Nobody has been "chased away."

 

 

You constantly derail this thread into ancillary discussion that have nothing to do with Nicotinamide Riboside.  You are constantly going down rabbit holes, attacking people, chasing some side story that is away from the main discussion issue of NR.

 

You fuck up this thread more than anyone here.  It's beyond irritating.  Maybe somewhere between your studies of topology and real analysis, on your way to a math degree, you could have picked up some coursework in common sense.

 

Even if Michael Rae had zero academic training in biology, chemistry and the life sciences, just the fact that he's worked 10+ years in the life extension area -- in and around leading scientists in the field with a serious funding effort, has granted him a high level of exposure and experience that most do not have.  There aren't a lot of people like Michael Rae who have been working on these issues related to lifespan for such a lengthy period of time.  His opinion/views may be wrong.  They may not be the only opinion.  But they are certainly not valueless.


Edited by prophets, 26 November 2016 - 11:27 PM.

  • Agree x 5

#1588 bluemoon

  • Registered User
  • 465 posts
  • 30
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 26 November 2016 - 11:39 PM

Rewind the thread. I have not derailed at any point. The two recent examples: a guy posts about what he considers to be a high risk of NR causing cancer. I show where at least NMN doesnt seem to, etc and some how I am the one going off topic? The same when Kevin criticized Michael Rae and more than I did. I was responding to what was already on the page.

 

If Michael Rae has worked so long with longevity, then why didn't he know the basic fact that longevity in the West since 1950 has increased about 6 or 7 years unrelated to child mortality? And yeah, I guess it annoys me when the hyperbolic throw around "exponential change" when nothing of the sort happened.

 

Anyway prophets, I'm sorry I worked you up into a little hissy fit. 

 

 

 


  • Off-Topic x 3
  • dislike x 1

#1589 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 997 posts
  • 1,404
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 26 November 2016 - 11:42 PM

Sigh ...
 

Here is a short 7 minute version of his 15 minute talk in 2008. Please tell me where I have been wrong or misleading.


Throughout ;) .
 

You know, I didn't nitpick his 2008 presentation when he throws around "exponentially downward curve" without any idea what an exponential is. What is his science background? Nothing.

 

I described the "downward exponential curve of biological aging" (≈2:20), referring to the (yes) exponential increase of morbidity and mortality rate with age. I'll acknowledge a tiny bit of slop elsewhere in describing the survival curve itself as simply following an exponential, since it is the interaction of the age-dependent and age-independent components, but suggesting that this demonstrates a complete lack of scientific background is completely unreasonable.
 

He says in this presentation that "It hasn't been since 1950 since we've made much change" in longevity which is way off as around 6 years have been added in the past 60 years apart from an increase due to lower childhood mortality.


(a) One year per decade in median lifespan is better than nothing, but hardly the kind of heroic progress made against child and infant mortality in from the late 1800s to mid-twentieth century, and for lack of progress against aging and late-life mortality, which was the subject at hand.

 

(b) The full quote is, "it hasn't been, since 1950, that we've made much change at the far end" (emphasis added). Median LS of course still incorporates ongoing progress in lowering deaths childhood mortality, and "premature" mortality in midlife.

 

[c) Even some of the progress in lowering relatively late-life mortality represents the long-term outcomes of better antenatal and child nutrition and infection control (the Barker hypothesis and related work by Finch and Crimmins).
 

I don't think Rae remembers his statement about De Gray at 4:10 in the link below. "He doesn't say 10 years, he says 25! (laughs)" Again, no he doesnt. He said a 50-50 chance of 25 years , which is worlds apart from Rae's misquote.


... and he says a 10% chance of it taking 100 years, and that it's subject to adequate funding. No one is going to build in all the caveats every time they discuss the same projection that's already been explained. Again, you're treating one quote out of a longer talk as all that was presented. Even in the section to which you refer I make additional reference to caveats about funding, and Dr. de Grey himself also presented in the same session as me. No one who was paying any attention would come away with thinking that he or anyone else had put forward a hard 25-year crystal-ball prediction.
 
bluemoon said: By the way, my undergrad degrees are in physics and mathematics - no biologist here! :)  What is your science background, Michael since you implied above that you have a science background of some sort, so can you tell us what it is? I think nothing since high school.

 

It is very hard for me to believe that any fair-minded reader would view the minor error and out-of-context statement you've presented as evidence that I have "no science background," but again: even if I had none, you'd still be attacking the person presenting the argument rather than the argument itself.

 

Not that I should have to say this, but to be clear: I was a biology major in university until my last year, when it became clear that I was never going to make it in the laboratory no matter how good my grades on written exams got, so I changed majors and made biology a minor. And I read scientific literature and interact with scientists almost every day of my life, and have done so for years.


  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#1590 prophets

  • Registered User, Advisor
  • 2,112 posts
  • 330
  • Location:US

Posted 27 November 2016 - 12:27 AM

stuff

 

Attack the argument. If you think Michael Rae's argument about NR and cancer are nonsense, then attack the argument about NR/cancer with valid analysis or some kind of informed opinion about NR and cancer.  

 

Don't attack the person.  Don't sit here and give us this song and dance about his lack of credibility, his academic deficits, or how he was wrong 6 years ago about some grandiose-spitball prediction that is unrelated to NR.


  • Agree x 3





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: nicotinamide riboside, nicotinamide, nad boosting, charles brenner, david sinclair, leonard guarente, niagen, niacinamide, nicotinamide mononucleotide

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (2)

Topic Led By