392 replies to this topic

[MikeDC]

Raising NAD+ for mice at huge doses is not really important for consumers. Everything comes down to money. At $30 per month how much NAD+ can NR and NMN increase? We know this very well already with NR and we know nothing about NMN.

Another big issue with NMN is currently there is no legitimate producer of NMN in the US market. All the sellers on Amazon are just packaging NMN from China. FDA calls this adultered supplement and it is against law to sell adultered supplements even though enforcement of this law is rare. Why would anyone risk their life to buy adultered NMN when they can buy NR with better research on humans and FDA approved supplements?

Edited by MikeDC, 27 April 2018 - 03:42 PM.

[able]

Raising NAD+ for mice at huge doses is not really important for consumers. Everything comes down to money. At $30 per month how much NAD+ can NR and NMN increase? We know this very well already with NR and we know nothing about NMN.

Another big issue with NMN is currently there is no legitimate producer of NMN in the US market. All the sellers on Amazon are just packaging NMN from China. FDA calls this adultered supplement and it is against law to sell adultered supplements even though enforcement of this law is rare. Why would anyone risk their life to buy adultered NMN when they can buy NR with better research on humans and FDA approved supplements?

 

Simply not true at all.  Take your meds.

 

Your  interpretation of the law and FDA Adultered supplements  is fantasy.

 

 

Edited by able, 27 April 2018 - 03:51 PM.

[Harkijn]

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.  

Yes, we know that there are much uncertainties about the effects of raising NAD+, but as I said that is all we have to go by...

 

I am sure that all regular posters here, except of course MikeDC, join me in asking you to share your personal experiences. N=1 is still the best practical info! ( If I lived in the US I would try some NMN, small amounts seem useful. But USPS has not been  kind to me... )

[LawrenceW]

 when they can buy NR with better research on humans and FDA approved supplements?

 

More BS from MikeDC

 

From: https://www.fda.gov/...s/ucm109760.htm

 

FDA is not authorized to review dietary supplement products for safety and effectiveness before they are marketed.

 

The FDA has not approved Niagen as MikeDC claims.

 

Edited by LawrenceW, 27 April 2018 - 04:41 PM.

[MikeDC]

More BS from MikeDC

From: https://www.fda.gov/...s/ucm109760.htm

FDA is not authorized to review dietary supplement products for safety and effectiveness before they are marketed.

The FDA has not approved Niagen as MikeDC claims.

Each manufacture of ingredients need to file either NDI or Grass with FDA. FDA has issued no objection letter to ChromaDex on its Grass filing which means it is approved. FDA will never approve supplements for functional claims, only safety.

There is no Grass or NDI related to the NMN in the market. This is classified as adultered by FDA.

All NMN sellers need to reference their source of NMN and associated Grass or NDI. None of them have revealed their source because their source is not legitimate. They use terms like manufactured in the US to fool consumers when only the bottling is done in the US and ingridients are sourced from China.

[LawrenceW]

Each manufacture of ingredients need to file either NDI or Grass with FDA. FDA has issued no objection letter to ChromaDex on its Grass filing which means it is approved. 

 

 

There you go again. The approval you speak of is that it got added to the New Dietary Ingredient list. You are trying to make it sound like the FDA has approved the safety of Niagen which it has definitely not done. The GRAS has to be included as part of the NDI filing.

 

THE FACT THAT A NEW DIETARY INGREDIENT IS LISTED IN THIS TABLE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY FDA THAT A NEW DIETARY INGREDIENT OR A DIETARY SUPPLEMENT THAT CONTAINS A NEW DIETARY INGREDIENT IS SAFE OR IS NOT ADULTERATED UNDER SECTION 21 U.S.C. 342.

Edited by LawrenceW, 27 April 2018 - 05:56 PM.

[able]

Each manufacture of ingredients need to file either NDI or Grass with FDA. FDA has issued no objection letter to ChromaDex on its Grass filing which means it is approved. FDA will never approve supplements for functional claims, only safety.

There is no Grass or NDI related to the NMN in the market. This is classified as adultered by FDA.

All NMN sellers need to reference their source of NMN and associated Grass or NDI. None of them have revealed their source because their source is not legitimate. They use terms like manufactured in the US to fool consumers when only the bottling is done in the US and ingridients are sourced from China.

 

 

NO, they don't.

 

Do you know you are lying, or just so seriously deluded you fool yourself?

 

You were preaching about NR long before it had GRAS (not grass) status or NDI.  

 

Neither of which is required for a supplement that is from a natural, existing food source, which is true of both NR and NMN.

 

 

 

 

Each manufacture of ingredients need to file either NDI or Grass with FDA. 

 

Where do you find that requirement?

 

From the FDA site:

 

"The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) requires that manufacturers and distributors who wish to market dietary supplements that contain "new dietary ingredients"

 

 

Perhaps you chose to be fooled by the "misstatements" on the Chromadex site saying NMN has not been found in food sources, when it was in the Mills study - no NDI needed.

Edited by able, 27 April 2018 - 06:40 PM.

[MikeDC]

There you go again. The approval you speak of is that it got added to the New Dietary Ingredient list. You are trying to make it sound like the FDA has approved the safety of Niagen which it has definitely not done. The GRAS has to be included as part of the NDI filing.

THE FACT THAT A NEW DIETARY INGREDIENT IS LISTED IN THIS TABLE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY FDA THAT A NEW DIETARY INGREDIENT OR A DIETARY SUPPLEMENT THAT CONTAINS A NEW DIETARY INGREDIENT IS SAFE OR IS NOT ADULTERATED UNDER SECTION 21 U.S.C. 342.

It means that FDA has examined your documentation and agrees with the documentation. Your documentation needs to show prove that the new ingredient is safe. ChromaDex has documented toxicity studies on mice and has recommended human dose on that. Safe dose on mice were divided by 12 to correct differences in physiology and then another 10 factor to ensure more safety for humans. That is why 250mg was recommended.

[MikeDC]

NO, they don't.

Do you know you are lying, or just so seriously deluded you fool yourself?

You were preaching about NR long before it had GRAS (not grass) status or NDI.

Neither of which is required for a supplement that is from a natural, existing food source, which is true of both NR and NMN.





Where do you find that requirement?

From the FDA site:

"The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) requires that manufacturers and distributors who wish to market dietary supplements that contain "new dietary ingredients"


Perhaps you chose to be fooled by the "misstatements" on the Chromadex site saying NMN has not been found in food sources, when it was in the Mills study - no NDI needed.

“When to Notify FDA and What is a New Dietary Ingredient

What is a "new dietary ingredient?"

The term "new dietary ingredient" means a dietary ingredient that was not marketed in the United States in a dietary supplement before October 15, 1994. (See section 413(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), 21 U.S.C. 350b(d)). ”

Has NMN been marketed as dietary supplement before 1994?
The answer is no. So NDI notification is needed before you can sell it. Otherwise it is adultered.

[able]

“When to Notify FDA and What is a New Dietary Ingredient

What is a "new dietary ingredient?"

The term "new dietary ingredient" means a dietary ingredient that was not marketed in the United States in a dietary supplement before October 15, 1994. (See section 413(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), 21 U.S.C. 350b(d)). ”

Has NMN been marketed as dietary supplement before 1994?
The answer is no. So NDI notification is needed before you can sell it. Otherwise it is adultered.

 

Either you have severe adhd, or are purposely skipping the relevant part.. I'll help you out - here:

 

 

When must I notify FDA about a new dietary ingredient?

The FD&C Act provides that a dietary supplement that contains a new dietary ingredient shall be deemed adulterated under section 402(f) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(f)) unless it meets one of two requirements:

1. The dietary supplement contains only dietary ingredients which have been present in the food supply as an article used for food in a form in which the food has not been chemically altered;

 

I already pointed out above, that Mills specifically listed foods NMN was found in.  That is exactly what NR did in Trammel, to justify selling it before a NDI was filed.

 

So, did you have a problem with Chromadex doing that to sell NR?  

 

Do you think Mills data showing NMN found in several food sources  is fraudulent?

 

"Have been present in the food supply" is the basis for nearly all new supplements sold - if you can't comprehend that basic theory, you shouldn't be commenting.

Edited by able, 27 April 2018 - 08:15 PM.

[MikeDC]

Either you have severe adhd, or are purposely skipping the relevant part.. I'll help you out - here:


When must I notify FDA about a new dietary ingredient?
The FD&C Act provides that a dietary supplement that contains a new dietary ingredient shall be deemed adulterated under section 402(f) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(f)) unless it meets one of two requirements:

• The dietary supplement contains only dietary ingredients which have been present in the food supply as an article used for food in a form in which the food has not been chemically altered;

I already pointed out above, that Mills specifically listed foods NMN was found in. That is exactly what NR did in Trammel, to justify selling it before a NDI was filed.

So, did you have a problem with Chromadex doing that to sell NR?

Do you think Mills data showing NMN found in several food sources is fraudulent?

Found in food or anywhere else is not the same thing as an ingredient. Has NMN been isolated or manufactured and used in food and supplements? The answer is no.

NMN and NR are also present in our body. That is not enough to waive the NDI.

Obviously ChromaDex decided that their argument was false and filed NDI.

Edited by MikeDC, 27 April 2018 - 08:19 PM.

[stefan_001]

Either you have severe adhd, or are purposely skipping the relevant part.. I'll help you out - here:

 

 

When must I notify FDA about a new dietary ingredient?

The FD&C Act provides that a dietary supplement that contains a new dietary ingredient shall be deemed adulterated under section 402(f) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 342(f)) unless it meets one of two requirements:

1. The dietary supplement contains only dietary ingredients which have been present in the food supply as an article used for food in a form in which the food has not been chemically altered;

 

I already pointed out above, that Mills specifically listed foods NMN was found in.  That is exactly what NR did in Trammel, to justify selling it before a NDI was filed.

 

So, did you have a problem with Chromadex doing that to sell NR?  

 

Do you think Mills data showing NMN found in several food sources  is fraudulent?

 

"Have been present in the food supply" is the basis for nearly all new supplements sold - if you can't comprehend that basic theory, you shouldn't be commenting.

 

NR is sold in a stabilized form. For NMN its the same. These are not found in food.

 

[MikeDC]

NR is sold in a stabilized form. For NMN its the same. These are not found in food.

Even if NR and NMN are found in milk, they are not ingredient of the milk. We can find toxins in milk too, does it mean we can sell toxins as supplements?

[able]

If anything, your argument is the reverse of what you intend.

 

Niagen is NR + Chloride, which is NOT found in foods or the body.  

 

Chromadex sold this "adultered" product for some years before filing for NDI.  Have you filing a lawsuit against Chromadex yet?

 

NMN is sold as purified NMN - No chloride, or anything else added.  Exactly as it exists in the body and in many foods.

 

That is how the FDA rule works in these cases. Why do you think the rules should suddenly be different for NMN?

 

Do you have a point?

Edited by able, 27 April 2018 - 08:27 PM.

[MikeDC]

We have a few people here who claims to be not related to NMN retailers. But they become so emotional in defending adultered sales of NMN by unreputable retailers.

ChromaDex has made NR commercially available at a reasonable price and provided mice and human studies to show it is effective at raising NAD+. I am very grateful for their effort. Otherwise NR may not be available even today. I am proud to hold ChromaDex stocks.

[MikeDC]

If anything, your argument is the reverse of what you intend.

Niagen is NR + Chloride, which is NOT found in foods or the body.

Chromadex sold this "adultered" product for some years before filing for NDI. Have you filing a lawsuit against Chromadex yet?

NMN is sold as purified NMN - No chloride, or anything else added. Exactly as it exists in the body and in many foods.

That is how the FDA rule works in these cases. Why do you think the rules should suddenly be different for NMN?

Do you have a point?

ChromaDex was wrong at defending sales of Niagen before NDI is filed. But they filed it eventually.

NMN has never been sold as supplements or food ingredient before. It was sold as research chemical. So NMN manufacturer should file NDI. In additional, each supplier needs to file an independent NDI related to its own manufacturing process.

[able]

We have a few people here who claims to be not related to NMN retailers. But they become so emotional in defending adultered sales of NMN by unreputable retailers.

ChromaDex has made NR commercially available at a reasonable price and provided mice and human studies to show it is effective at raising NAD+. I am very grateful for their effort. Otherwise NR may not be available even today. I am proud to hold ChromaDex stocks.

 

Maybe I had too much caffeine.  I normally ignore your blather.

 

But there are DOZENS of people here who get frustrated with your Chromadex cheerleading and attacking resv, ptero, raps, NMN and any NR competitor.

[able]

ChromaDex was wrong at defending sales of Niagen before NDI is filed. But they filed it eventually.

NMN has never been sold as supplements or food ingredient before. It was sold as research chemical. So NMN manufacturer should file NDI. In additional, each supplier needs to file an independent NDI related to its own manufacturing process.

 

Wow, you just won't give up, will you.

 

You're making up a new requirement that NO other supplement mfg has to work under.  

 

You've already buried yourself.  Stop digging.  Find another argument.

[OP2040]

It;s sad that someone coming to this thread for serious, honest advise would end up more confused, and possibly more ignorant than when they started.

 

If we can distill something for folks that don't want to spend hours a day debating and researching, I would say this:

 

1. Ignore the thread title, as the choice is only really between NMN and NR.  NAD+ is the target, Niagen is a company, and assuming NM means

    Nicotinamide, we are way past that.

2. We simply don't know enough yet to make bold statements, however

3. NMN and NR are probably both good choices, but keep an eye on the news to see if one pulls ahead.  Given that,

4. Feel free to try one, the other, or both from a trusted supplier that fits your budget, as the research seems clear that these might be very effective

    anti-aging compounds.

5. Maybe mix it up with some Broccoli Sprout Extracts (Sulphurophane) to enhance the effect.

6. Ignore everything MikeDC says, even though a few truths might be found within the morass of endless spin.

 

 

[MikeDC]

Wow, you just won't give up, will you.

You're making up a new requirement that NO other supplement mfg has to work under.

You've already buried yourself. Stop digging. Find another argument.

What is a "new dietary ingredient?"

The term "new dietary ingredient" means a dietary ingredient that was not marketed in the United States in a dietary supplement before October 15, 1994. (See section 413(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), 21 U.S.C. 350b(d)). ”

[MikeDC]

It;s sad that someone coming to this thread for serious, honest advise would end up more confused, and possibly more ignorant than when they started.

If we can distill something for folks that don't want to spend hours a day debating and researching, I would say this:

1. Ignore the thread title, as the choice is only really between NMN and NR. NAD+ is the target, Niagen is a company, and assuming NM means
Nicotinamide, we are way past that.
2. We simply don't know enough yet to make bold statements, however
3. NMN and NR are probably both good choices, but keep an eye on the news to see if one pulls ahead. Given that,
4. Feel free to try one, the other, or both from a trusted supplier that fits your budget, as the research seems clear that these might be very effective
anti-aging compounds.
5. Maybe mix it up with some Broccoli Sprout Extracts (Sulphurophane) to enhance the effect.
6. Ignore everything MikeDC says, even though a few truths might be found within the morass of endless spin.

NR is much superior than NMN as NAD+ precursor. NR also has many human trials data while NMN has none even though it has a much longer history of availability.

Niagen is a reliable supplier and NMN has none except for research grades that cost thousands of dollars. Everything else is junk from China.

[OP2040]

I am looking at my bottle of NMN (Alive by Nature) right now.  It is made in the USA, in an FDA certified facility with GMP standards, and greater than 99% purity.   I have worked with the FDA before and with GMP standards.  There is nothing wrong with this product unless you are a conspiracy theorist or have an agenda.

 

Can you for once admit you were wrong?  You have literally no credibility left here, so it doesn't matter anyway. 

Edited by OP2040, 27 April 2018 - 09:41 PM.

[MikeDC]

We have been focusing on NAD+ increase as marker of NAD+ precursor effectiveness. The Trammell paper contains a chart that compared ADP Ribose from NR, Niacin, and NAM.

ADP Ribose level is an indicator of NAD+ consumption flux from Sirtuins and Parps. This chart shows NR produced the most ADPR and NAM produced the least. 

NAM raised more NAD+ than Niacin, but generated much less ADPR. This could be another confirmation that NAM inhibit Sirtuin activity. 

This also explains why NAM causes insulin resistance while Niacin can reduce cholesterol levels. From all the personal experiences reported, NR has more anti aging effect than both. 

 

Attached Files

•  Trammell_ADPR.GIF   12.23KB   2 downloads

Edited by MikeDC, 30 April 2018 - 02:48 PM.

[tunt01]

We have been focusing on NAD+ increase as marker of NAD+ precursor effectiveness. The Trammell paper contains a chart that compared ADP Ribose from NR, Niacin, and NAM.

ADP Ribose level is an indicator of NAD+ consumption flux from Sirtuins and Parps. This chart shows NR produced the most ADPR and NAM produced the least. 

NAM raised more NAD+ than Niacin, but generated much less ADPR. This could be another confirmation that NAM inhibit Sirtuin activity. 

This also explains why NAM causes insulin resistance while Niacin can reduce cholesterol levels. From all the personal experiences reported, NR has more anti aging effect than both. 

 

Interesting point, MikeDC.  What do you make of NA having the highest AUC?

[MikeDC]

Interesting point, MikeDC. What do you make of NA having the highest AUC?

NA has the second highest. Lower than NR.

[Hebbeh]

NA has the second highest. Lower than NR.

We know you can't interpret a study and now we know you can't even read a chart. Everything is stock pumping blather.

[MikeDC]

We know you can't interpret a study and now we know you can't even read a chart. Everything is stock pumping blather.

If you know how to read the chart, you will see the black bar under AUC is NR and it is the highest.

[Hebbeh]

If you know how to read the chart, you will see the black bar under AUC is NR and it is the highest.

Can you explain how to calculate AUC?

[MikeDC]

Can you explain how to calculate AUC?

Area under the curve after subtracting baseline.

[LawrenceW]

MikeDC.

 

The chart on the right is the spike.  The chart on the left shows the levels attained at different time points.  Obviously the NA has the highest total levels.