392 replies to this topic

[MikeDC]

Is there a specific blood test you can get done to check NAD levels?

Not yet.

[LawrenceW]

Not yet.

 

Which begs the question, how are they currently testing for NAD levels in humans?

[MikeDC]

Which begs the question, how are they currently testing for NAD levels in humans?

Yes, all human NAD+ data are fake and that is why there is NMN clinical trial results.

Is this what you want me to say? You try to find every angle to discredit NR and pump NMN. Of course research labs can test NAD+ Levels and they are not commercialized yet.

Not sure how many people you have tricked to take NMN. I would not take it even if you give it to me for free. All NMN are from China with potentially toxins and heavy metal contamination. Even if they post 3 lab report saying it is 99% pure. There is no way knowing if they dilute or switch source anytime they want it.

You are an extremely good actor pretending to be independent.

[able]

Yes, all human NAD+ data are fake and that is why there is NMN clinical trial results.

Is this what you want me to say? You try to find every angle to discredit NR and pump NMN. Of course research labs can test NAD+ Levels and they are not commercialized yet.

Not sure how many people you have tricked to take NMN. I would not take it even if you give it to me for free. All NMN are from China with potentially toxins and heavy metal contamination. Even if they post 3 lab report saying it is 99% pure. There is no way knowing if they dilute or switch source anytime they want it.

You are an extremely good actor pretending to be independent.

 

They post reports from 3 different labs, with lot numbers, showing the finished product is safe and pure.

 

And yet you say it is garbage.  And that resveratrol does nothing.  And that Pterostilbene has negative effects, without ANY proof whatsoever.

 

If God himself came down and personally told you something bad about NR, or positive about a competitor, I'm confident you would argue with him.  

 

You need therapy, or medication.

Edited by able, 25 April 2018 - 09:45 PM.

[MikeDC]

They post reports from 3 different labs, with lot numbers, showing the finished product is safe and pure.

And yet you say it is garbage. And that resveratrol does nothing. And that Pterostilbene has negative effects, without ANY proof whatsoever.

If God himself came down and personally told you something bad about NR, or positive about a competitor, I'm confident you would argue with him.

You need therapy, or medication.

Since there is no grass or NDI for any NMN suppliers, they are all adultered. If they are serious about selling NMN, they need to get FDA NDI and do human trials using the same source. Lab reports or lot numbers are useless unless the original supplier is named and reputable.

[MikeDC]

http://journals.plos...al.pone.0019194

To show the 500% rise of liver NAD+ after NMN supplementation is all due to fabricating the baseline NAD+ in the liver.
Figure 7A of this paper showed liver has the highest baseline NAD+ of all tissues tested.
If you use the NAD+ levels in this study in the liver and convert to the scale used by Sinclair’s paper, it would be a little over 10 and a little higher than GA. Thus liver has higher baseline NAD+ and higher NAD+ after NMN supplementation. The percentage rise of NAD+ would be in agreement with other previous studies.

Attached Files

•  9E0539F1-C26B-4F69-84CB-33374803AADB.png   428.58KB   0 downloads
•  DCDC0DB8-C1E2-4006-9D99-47E2B00A3DAD.png   562.12KB   0 downloads

[LawrenceW]

Get ready to hang on to your hats folks. Chromadex has dropped to less than $4.00 and its going to be a long day with MikeDC and his "they fabricated the data" conspiracy theory.

[MikeDC]

Get ready to hang on to your hats folks. Chromadex has dropped to less than $4.00 and its going to be a long day with MikeDC and his "they fabricated the data" conspiracy theory.

The NMN camp is definitely desperate. Will they publish a correction or withdraw the paper?

[MikeDC]

https://www.longecit...elomere-length/

 

I created a new thread. NR helped to maintain Telomere length.

[OP2040]

Telomere length so yesterday, get with the times man.

[MikeDC]

Telomere length so yesterday, get with the times man.

 

Telomere length has always been in play. That is the main reason you get senescent cells. Learn!

[John250]

Telomere length is very important. If you donate blood too frequently it take ferritin which in turn can cause mitochondrial damage and effect telomere length which will shorten your lifespan.

[able]

http://journals.plos...al.pone.0019194

To show the 500% rise of liver NAD+ after NMN supplementation is all due to fabricating the baseline NAD+ in the liver.
Figure 7A of this paper showed liver has the highest baseline NAD+ of all tissues tested.
If you use the NAD+ levels in this study in the liver and convert to the scale used by Sinclair’s paper, it would be a little over 10 and a little higher than GA. Thus liver has higher baseline NAD+ and higher NAD+ after NMN supplementation. The percentage rise of NAD+ would be in agreement with other previous studies.

 

The 50% increase in soleus muscle is also much higher than other studies.  Would you like to "adjust" their baseline numbers there also, so they don't hurt your stock price?

[MikeDC]

The 50% increase in soleus muscle is also much higher than other studies. Would you like to "adjust" their baseline numbers there also, so they don't hurt your stock price?

I don’t care if they claim 50% to 100% NAD+ increase, the 500% increase is plainly fraudulent. They also failed to give details about the time of measurement. NMN is an inferior NAD+ precursor because of two things. One is NMN needs to convert to NR first Before it can enter cells. The conversion efficiency is definitely far lower than 100%. Another issue is the kidney seems to filter NMN out from the blood stream. This is demonstrated by NMN disappearing quickly after IV injection and higher NAD+ generated in the kidney.

[able]

I don’t care if they claim 50% to 100% NAD+ increase, the 500% increase is plainly fraudulent. They also failed to give details about the time of measurement. NMN is an inferior NAD+ precursor because of two things. One is NMN needs to convert to NR first Before it can enter cells. The conversion efficiency is definitely far lower than 100%. Another issue is the kidney seems to filter NMN out from the blood stream. This is demonstrated by NMN disappearing quickly after IV injection and higher NAD+ generated in the kidney.

 

 

Sure.  And the liver seems to "filter" NR out from the bloodstream.  You find the liver increase with NR good, but somehow the kidney increase from NMN is bad.  Really amazing.

 

Perhaps you should also adjust the performance numbers from that study.  Maybe they didn't really have twice the endurance.  Or new blood vessel growth.  

[MikeDC]

Sure. And the liver seems to "filter" NR out from the bloodstream. You find the liver increase with NR good, but somehow the kidney increase from NMN is bad. Really amazing.

Perhaps you should also adjust the performance numbers from that study. Maybe they didn't really have twice the endurance. Or new blood vessel growth.

Liver doesn’t filter NR out specifically. The amount of NR reaching the blood stream is actually much higher than NMN. The ling LIU dissertation which has been published now shows both NR and NMN are mostly converted to NAM during the absorption process.

Increasing NAD+ in the kidney is good, it just happens at the expense of other organs.

[able]

Liver doesn’t filter NR out specifically. The amount of NR reaching the blood stream is actually much higher than NMN. The ling LIU dissertation which has been published now shows both NR and NMN are mostly converted to NAM during the absorption process.

Increasing NAD+ in the kidney is good, it just happens at the expense of other organs.

 

Right.

 

Increasing NAD+ in the LIVER  is good, it just happens at the expense of other organs.

 

Your ability to see a blue sky on a rainy day is truly amazing.

[MikeDC]

While there is data of NAD+ increase after one time supplementation of NR for up to 24 hours. We only have the same data for NMN for up to 135 minutes.

I found this in vitro data that shows NR increased 40% more NAD+ than NMN with the same concentration of NR and NMN after 6 hours.

 

 

 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5476803/

Attached Files

•  NR-NMN.GIF   72.32KB   0 downloads

[MikeDC]

Right.

Increasing NAD+ in the LIVER is good, it just happens at the expense of other organs.

Your ability to see a blue sky on a rainy day is truly amazing.

NR raised NAD+ more than NMN in all tissues tested except kidney up to 135 minutes. So there is no issue of liver getting more NAD+ at the expense of others. Actually the Ling LIU work showed liver convert almost all NAD+ precursors to NAD+ and secret NAM for other organs.

Another of my observations that is not related to NR and NMN comparison is the difference between NR and NAM in terms of insulin sensitivity and cholesterol metabolism are all happening at liver.

Edited by MikeDC, 27 April 2018 - 02:25 PM.

[LawrenceW]

But MikeDC,

 

The control baseline NAD levels are double for the NMN mouse.  Was somebody cherry picking which mouse to give the NR to for better results?

 

[MikeDC]

But MikeDC,

The control baseline NAD levels are double for the NMN mouse. Was somebody cherry picking which mouse to give the NR to for better results?

Higher baseline NAD+ actually favors NMN because we are not talking about rate of increase. We are comparing the absolute NAD+. Absolute NAD+ from NR is actually 60% higher than NMN at 6 hours.

Edited by MikeDC, 27 April 2018 - 02:51 PM.

[OP2040]

able is correct and MikeDC^chromadex

^{is incorrect.} 

 

^{There are now many studies for NMN in mice showing frankly awesome results for Alzheimers, Kidney, Vascular, DNA repair, and general aging biomarkers.  And most of them are over the course of 6/12/20 months, which are significant chunks of a mice's lifespan.  My favorite is the NMN and kidney study.  A chemo drug AND aging being beaten back by NMN in the kidney.}

 

^{With this in mind it doesn't really matter whether the NMN reached this or that organ, as it is logically clear that the mouse body is using and benefiting from it.}

 

^{All you have left is that maybe this doesn't work in humans.  Well, you keep hanging onto that last thready buddy, that is until the clinical trials are complete.  I'm sure someone could dig up some statements by Sinclair already that shows him being quite confident that NMN will have results in humans too.}

 

 

 

[LawrenceW]

Higher baseline NAD suggests a healthier mouse and negates any comparison between the two results.

[MikeDC]

Higher baseline NAD suggests a healthier mouse and negates any comparison between the two results.

Actually it is much easier to increase NAD+ to a certain level on healthy mice than old mice.

able is correct and MikeDC<sup>chromadex
is incorrect.

There are now many studies for NMN in mice showing frankly awesome results for Alzheimers, Kidney, Vascular, DNA repair, and general aging biomarkers. And most of them are over the course of 6/12/20 months, which are significant chunks of a mice's lifespan. My favorite is the NMN and kidney study. A chemo drug AND aging being beaten back by NMN in the kidney.

With this in mind it doesn't really matter whether the NMN reached this or that organ, as it is logically clear that the mouse body is using and benefiting from it.

All you have left is that maybe this doesn't work in humans. Well, you keep hanging onto that last thready buddy, that is until the clinical trials are complete. I'm sure someone could dig up some statements by Sinclair already that shows him being quite confident that NMN will have results in humans too.</sup>

NR has shown the same effects on mice.

[Harkijn]

You two make it your weekend leasure to fruitlessly bicker. Truth is that we simply don't know enough yet to decide which one  is better or indeed if they are complementary. Elsewhere on LC Michael has detailed  the view that NR is slightly better. On the other hand the commercial website Aliveby Nature makes a good case for NMN:

http://alivebynature...d-boosters/nmn/

 

(Meanwhile , in view of the supposed quick absorption and drastic effect of NMN, it is peculiar that the NMN personal experiences thread which was started 5 weeks ago has attracted no personal experiences other than those of the threadstarter.)

[MikeDC]

Alivebynature’s claim that NMN absorbs quickly or quicker than NR is based on out dated data. The 2016 NMN study only tracked NAD+ for less than one hour and assumed all NMN were absorbed by that time. The ling LIU study clearly showed that NMN and NR are absorbed at about the same rate and NAD+ effects extended into hour 2 and beyond.

Alivebynature picked up the 500% increase quickly. But ignores new data from Ling Liu’s Work that shows NMN is not absorbed any quicker than NR and generated less NAD+ up to 2 hours. The difference gets larger at longer time frames as demonstrated by the data I posted above. At 6 hours the difference was 60%.

[able]

You two make it your weekend leasure to fruitlessly bicker. Truth is that we simply don't know enough yet to decide which one  is better or indeed if they are complementary. Elsewhere on LC Michael has detailed  the view that NR is slightly better. On the other hand the commercial website Aliveby Nature makes a good case for NMN:

http://alivebynature...d-boosters/nmn/

 

(Meanwhile , in view of the supposed quick absorption and drastic effect of NMN, it is peculiar that the NMN personal experiences thread which was started 5 weeks ago has attracted no personal experiences other than those of the threadstarter.)

 

Michael did make a very detailed review of the studies to date, concluding that NR was slightly more effecient AT ELEVATING NAD+.  That is, in the organs measured.  And as he always points out, we don't know that simply elevating NAD+ is the real driver of health benefits, or some signaling that goes along with NAD+ levels, or what.  

 

 

As for the experiences thread, I have contemplated posting there many times, but hesitate because I don't feel like defending against the onslaught that will follow anything positive there.  

[OP2040]

You two make it your weekend leasure to fruitlessly bicker. Truth is that we simply don't know enough yet to decide which one  is better or indeed if they are complementary. Elsewhere on LC Michael has detailed  the view that NR is slightly better. On the other hand the commercial website Aliveby Nature makes a good case for NMN:

http://alivebynature...d-boosters/nmn/

 

(Meanwhile , in view of the supposed quick absorption and drastic effect of NMN, it is peculiar that the NMN personal experiences thread which was started 5 weeks ago has attracted no personal experiences other than those of the threadstarter.)

 

The problem is that MikeDC is saying that NR is definitely better and downing not just NMN but any and all other interventions that may compete with NR.  The rest of us are not saying that at all.  I have no ego or money in this.  If NR turns out to be better, I'd switch immediately.  In fact, I'd use both just to hedge my bets if I were wealthy enough.  But for now, you're, we're stuck with educated guessing, and my educated guess after reading pretty much everything available on the subject, is that NMN has more potential.

 

As for the experience thread, that makes sense NMN is much newer and much less used on the forum.  I've only been using it for a few months myself.  One of the issues I think we will encounter with either NMN or NR is that because it is so expensive, very few people will even be using the doses that might be expected to have dramatic results.

[LawrenceW]

You two make it your weekend leasure to fruitlessly bicker. 

 

Hello Harkijn.

 

On the contrary. I don't view it as fruitless bickering.  For a long time MikeDC has run free on LC using the old Vladimir Lenin model of "A lie told often enough becomes the truth".  The veterans of LC know to double check and question everything that MikeDC claims, but any newbie coming to LC might take his claims as presented.  I am simply trying to make everyone aware that there are two sides to this NAD precursor story and that people need to do their own research and experimenting.

[able]

Alivebynature’s claim that NMN absorbs quickly or quicker than NR is based on out dated data. The 2016 NMN study only tracked NAD+ for less than one hour and assumed all NMN were absorbed by that time. The ling LIU study clearly showed that NMN and NR are absorbed at about the same rate and NAD+ effects extended into hour 2 and beyond.

Alivebynature picked up the 500% increase quickly. But ignores new data from Ling Liu’s Work that shows NMN is not absorbed any quicker than NR and generated less NAD+ up to 2 hours. The difference gets larger at longer time frames as demonstrated by the data I posted above. At 6 hours the difference was 60%.

 

Indeed, there is conflicting data all over the place.  Mills shows NMN IS found in bloodstream, and muscle, and much quicker to tissues than Liu found.  

 

Liu used 1/6 the dose of other studies, so it's not surprising there are different findings in some cases.

 

But, as I pointed out previously, you accept some findings in Liu even when inconsistent with all other work, and argue with other findings by Liu.  

Edited by able, 27 April 2018 - 03:44 PM.