• 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

#2251 sthira

  • Member
  • 1,654 posts
  • 306

Posted 13 May 2017 - 08:40 PM

...taking the predigested form of NR ought to act faster than NR, and given a greater than a stoichiometric dose of ribose, ought to produce a larger NR level in the blood for a given nicotinamide content.


@Turnbuckle, do you test your blood glucose ?

... ribose is a highly glycating sugar...


Edited by sthira, 13 May 2017 - 08:42 PM.


#2252 Turnbuckle

  • Registered User
  • 2,554 posts
  • 790
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 13 May 2017 - 09:30 PM

 

 

Note that one doesn't actually have to prove — or even believe — that NR is absorbed intact as NR to prove — or believe — that NR raises NAD+ more than NAM,

 

 

I'm not arguing the merits of NR vs NAM. I'm saying that NR isn't as good as NAM + a greater than stoichiometric quantity of ribose. It's quite all right with me that people think NR is something special and want to pay the high price for it. It's almost a cult belief, seems to me, that flies in the face of the evidence that it is must be digested before absorption. And I suspect the promoters of NR have not published the comparison of NR with NAM + ribose for the very good reason that the are making a lot of money on NR.

 

 

 Your logic make sense but:

 1. If its that simple to create NR, just mix NAM and ribose in one medium, why Chromadex use yeast for it ?

 2. NAM is native compound for our body and already exists in the system with some basal levels. Does it mean that taking ribose alone would be enough to boost NR production ?

 3. NAM and ribose have different pharmacokinetics. NAM reaches Cmax  after 1 to even 3 hours, ribose is a simple sugar and should be digested way quicker.

 

P.S. I could make this list very long, but its not about arguing for the sake of it )  Have you tried it compare it from experience ? Do NR and NAM+R act similar for you ?

 

 

1. NR is being created in the cells, most likely, either with NR or N+R dosing, not in a medium.

2. That is possible. Certainly ribose alone has some advantages for energy, though possibly for other reasons.

3. Likely true. Thus taking a greater than stoichiometric dose of ribose is warranted.

 

There is a thread here on whether NR is broken down during digestion that dates from 2015, but there was no satisfactory conclusion-- Is nicotinamide riboside (NR) broken down into nicotinamide (NAM) before it's absorbed?

 

Ultimately I don't care whether NR is better or worse than N+R, as I'm using levels of N+R that seem to be maxed out for what I want to achieve, and that's the fissioning of mitochondria prior to exercise. For example, I can't tell the difference between 2 and 3 grams NAM + 5 grams ribose. This would presumably equal 4 and 6 grams of NR (assuming that NR is broken down and reconstituted). Once all the mitochondria are fissioned, then that would be the limit no matter how much you took, and I suspect I'm close to that. So I'm using fissioning via N+R as a way of enhancing exercise, and for that is seems exceptional. In fact, I would rank it much higher than C60 in this regard. While C60 allowed me to use a great deal more weight in the gym, I eventually realized I wasn't gaining anything from it as a workout aid, and in fact C60 likely interferes with the quality control process. With N+R, by contrast, I can lift much less weight, yet I'm gaining muscle mass at rate that I haven't in 15 or 20 years, but with a much lighter workout (I am presently in social security territory). I'd expect NR to work the same way, given a large enough dose. The most I've taken of it is one gram, and while I didn't see anything, I probably didn't allow enough time for NAD+ to build up, as NAD+ appears to be slower to reach a peak with NR (which you would expect if it has to be digested).

 

I'm presently alternating mitochondrial fission with fusion, as both are needed for mitochondrial health. One day of fission/exercise and then two days of fusion/biogenesis. This is discussed in Manipulating mitochondrial dynamics.


Edited by Turnbuckle, 13 May 2017 - 09:37 PM.

  • Informative x 2
  • WellResearched 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.

#2253 Andey

  • Registered User
  • 397 posts
  • 98
  • Location:Kiev, Ukraine

Posted 14 May 2017 - 07:04 AM

Ultimately I don't care whether NR is better or worse than N+R, as I'm using levels of N+R that seem to be maxed out for what I want to achieve, and that's the fissioning of mitochondria prior to exercise. [...]
 
I'm presently alternating mitochondrial fission with fusion, as both are needed for mitochondrial health. One day of fission/exercise and then two days of fusion/biogenesis. This is discussed in Manipulating mitochondrial dynamics.

 
  Thanks )
 Actually I could somewhat support your approach. I ve tried to cycle NR/sulforaphane after your comments weeks ago that NR and sulforaphane contradict each other action in regards of mito fission/fusion.
With low dosages of NR there wasnt apparent difference in comparision with constant administration, but this week I took 750 mg and 500 mg for 2 days, then Broccomax in following days. On the 5th day I have a feeling that I have a spare battery or two while doing prolonged walk (around 5 km brisk walk partly uphill). All anecdotal of course but I go this route often and I feel as it was definitely noticeable like +40%. And I dont sure if Broccomax done anything as I took minimal dosages, maybe it about cycling highish NR dosages.
This post is out of place here, I will duplicate it in Manipulating mitochondrial dynamics.


Edited by Michael, 14 May 2017 - 03:32 PM.
trim quotes


#2254 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,014 posts
  • 1,423
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 14 May 2017 - 02:50 PM

Ultimately I don't care whether NR is better or worse than N+R, as I'm using levels of N+R that seem to be maxed out for what I want to achieve, and that's the fissioning of mitochondria prior to exercise. For example, I can't tell the difference between 2 and 3 grams NAM + 5 grams ribose. This would presumably equal 4 and 6 grams of NR (assuming that NR is broken down and reconstituted). ...
 
I'm presently alternating mitochondrial fission with fusion, as both are needed for mitochondrial health. One day of fission/exercise and then two days of fusion/biogenesis. This is discussed in Manipulating mitochondrial dynamics.


But, as a reminder, you've just agreed that this sequence leading from NR (or, here, NAM + R) to mitochondrial fission and beyond to a fission/fusion protocol and exercise performance is an elaborate mechanistic speculation, built up from a series of isolated and largely in vitro studies — not something with any direct scientific demonstration.


Edited by Michael, 14 May 2017 - 03:28 PM.

  • Good Point x 4

#2255 Turnbuckle

  • Registered User
  • 2,554 posts
  • 790
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 14 May 2017 - 04:13 PM

 

Ultimately I don't care whether NR is better or worse than N+R, as I'm using levels of N+R that seem to be maxed out for what I want to achieve, and that's the fissioning of mitochondria prior to exercise. For example, I can't tell the difference between 2 and 3 grams NAM + 5 grams ribose. This would presumably equal 4 and 6 grams of NR (assuming that NR is broken down and reconstituted). ...
 
I'm presently alternating mitochondrial fission with fusion, as both are needed for mitochondrial health. One day of fission/exercise and then two days of fusion/biogenesis. This is discussed in Manipulating mitochondrial dynamics.


But, as a reminder, you've just agreed that this sequence leading from NR (or, here, NAM + R) to mitochondrial fission and beyond to a fission/fusion protocol and exercise performance is an elaborate mechanistic speculation, built up from a series of isolated and largely in vitro studies — not something with any direct scientific demonstration.

 

 

I didn't use the words elaborate., mechanistic, or speculation. To your long list of items, I answered "Right. There is no study I'm aware of the combines all these elements." I wasn't agreeing with the validity of any particular one of your statements.


  • Agree x 3
  • like x 1

#2256 aribadabar

  • Registered User
  • 412 posts
  • 83
  • Location:Canada

Posted 14 May 2017 - 05:07 PM

 

Ultimately I don't care whether NR is better or worse than N+R, as I'm using levels of N+R that seem to be maxed out for what I want to achieve, and that's the fissioning of mitochondria prior to exercise. For example, I can't tell the difference between 2 and 3 grams NAM + 5 grams ribose. This would presumably equal 4 and 6 grams of NR (assuming that NR is broken down and reconstituted). ...
 
I'm presently alternating mitochondrial fission with fusion, as both are needed for mitochondrial health. One day of fission/exercise and then two days of fusion/biogenesis. This is discussed in Manipulating mitochondrial dynamics.


But, as a reminder, you've just agreed that this sequence leading from NR (or, here, NAM + R) to mitochondrial fission and beyond to a fission/fusion protocol and exercise performance is an elaborate mechanistic speculation, built up from a series of isolated and largely in vitro studies — not something with any direct scientific demonstration.

 

 

Not just in vitro studies - he claimed a few anecdotal self-reports (which you can take or leave as evidence) that N+R in high doses acted as NR for him .

I know you do not hold anecdotal reports in high regard as evidence but absent any studies proving his or your point directly, that is better than in vitro and certainly better than nothing/hypothesizing.


  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

sponsored ad

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

#2257 Michael

  • Advisor, Moderator
  • 1,014 posts
  • 1,423
  • Location:Location Location

Posted 14 May 2017 - 05:24 PM

 

 

Ultimately I don't care whether NR is better or worse than N+R, as I'm using levels of N+R that seem to be maxed out for what I want to achieve, and that's the fissioning of mitochondria prior to exercise.


But, as a reminder, you've just agreed that this sequence leading from NR (or, here, NAM + R) to mitochondrial fission and beyond to a fission/fusion protocol and exercise performance is an elaborate mechanistic speculation, built up from a series of isolated and largely in vitro studies — not something with any direct scientific demonstration.
 
Not just in vitro studies - he claimed a few anecdotal self-reports (which you can take or leave as evidence) that N+R in high doses acted as NR for him .
I know you do not hold anecdotal reports in high regard as evidence but absent any studies proving his or your point directly, that is better than in vitro and certainly better than nothing/hypothesizing.

You're right that I don't hold anecdotal reports in high regard as evidence, but let's be clear here: Turnbuckle doesn't have anecdotal "evidence"  that N+R in high doses acted as NR "for him" as regards his fission/fusion hypothesis,  nor as regards his NR/NAM+R NAD+ pharmacodynamics hypothesis, which are the subject of discussion. He has compared his subjective responses and workout experiences after NR and NAM+R with  c60 as part of his protocol, attributes the perceived changes to differences in mito fission/fusion per his mechanistic hypothesis,  concludes that they're equivalent in this regard. "I find supplement protocol X does Y for my workouts" is an anecdotal experience; there is no accompanying experience of finding supplement protocol X does Y for one's mitochondrial fission and fusion or tissue NAD+, short of an accompanying biopsy.


  • Agree x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

#2258 stefan_001

  • Registered User
  • 605 posts
  • 89
  • Location:Munich

Posted 14 May 2017 - 06:09 PM

NAD+ dependent SIRT3 in the news again:
Reduced SIRT3 contributes to large elastic artery stiffness with aging
http://www.fasebj.or...t/1080.13.short
  • Informative x 3

#2259 Nate-2004

  • Member
  • 1,310 posts
  • 149
  • Location:Philadelphia
  • NO

Posted 16 May 2017 - 05:49 PM

I'm 48 hours into a fast. Should I be taking NR? I haven't been taking any supplements other than occasional magnesium, sometimes l-theanine and sometimes ginger, but not sure about whether I should take anything at all. NR is considered a fasting mimetic, but what happens when you take NR while fasting? I doubt there's any research yet answering this question, but what are some hypothesis'?


Edited by Nate-2004, 16 May 2017 - 05:50 PM.


#2260 MikeDC

  • Registered User
  • 573 posts
  • -215
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 16 May 2017 - 07:55 PM

Guess depends how old you are. If you are less than 40, you probably don't need fasting and NR at the same time.
  • Needs references x 2

#2261 Bryan_S

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 1,154 posts
  • 364
  • Location:Orlando

Posted 16 May 2017 - 10:54 PM

The Effects of Nicotinamide Riboside Supplementation on NAD+/NADH Ratio and Bioenergetics

https://clinicaltria...how/NCT03151707

 

First received: May 4, 2017

Last updated: May 11, 2017
Last verified: May 2017
 

The primary aim of this study is to investigate the effects of exogenously administered nicotinamide riboside (NR) on brain NAD+/NADH ratio and bioenergetics functions in healthy individuals using phosphorus magnetic resonance spectroscopy (31P MRS) imaging.

 
The secondary aim is to investigate the effects of NR on brain structure and neurotransmitter functions using other neuroimaging methods.
 
More Human Clinical Trials https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5389020/

Edited by Bryan_S, 16 May 2017 - 11:11 PM.

  • Informative x 3

#2262 Bryan_S

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 1,154 posts
  • 364
  • Location:Orlando

Posted 18 May 2017 - 04:26 PM

The brain, sirtuins, and ageing

 
Akiko Satoh, Shin-ichiro Imai & Leonard Guarente
 
Nature Reviews Neuroscience 18, 362–374 (2017) doi:10.1038/nrn.2017.42
Published online 18 May 2017


sponsored ad

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

#2263 Bryan_S

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered User
  • 1,154 posts
  • 364
  • Location:Orlando

Posted 18 May 2017 - 04:42 PM

Just a note guys, LongeCity would like to consolidate many of the NR threads into a Sub-forum so everything can be found in one area. This is all in the discussion phase right now.
 
If you see some changes to this thread don't be alarmed. We'll preserve this thread but it's getting to be rather long, and people are having problems finding the research they came here for. We might just start fresh with a new one.
 
Personally, I'd like to see a thread where we just see pure research of NAD-repletion and its related topics with the comments getting branched off into a parallel discussion thread. I'll discuss this with our LongeCity Admins and see if and how this can be arranged.
 

Bryan

 

As always JMHO


  • Agree x 6
  • Well Written x 1
  • like x 1
  • unsure x 1





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

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users

Topic Led By