34 replies to this topic

[MikeDC]

The primary end points of the clinical trial is adverse effects of Niagen supplementation. They found none. So Niagen is very safe.

Remember that the Clinical trial participants were very healthy adults. Many of the benefits we observed like lower cholesterol and A1C were not observed in the paper because their cholesterol are already low (167) and blood glucose in normal range. But luckily some people have blood pressure in the range of 120 and 139. Blood pressure in this range were reduced by 9. mean carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) Was also reduced.

https://www.nature.c...467-018-03421-7

Edited by MikeDC, 29 March 2018 - 01:21 PM.

[Oakman]

With 2x500mg NR daily dose for 6 weeks, the only significant effects are seemingly for those with higher blood pressure. A bit dissapointing, but at least it appears safe to consume.

[ledgf]

Most Americans over 50 need blood pressure reduction. Hardly "disappointing", especially when you think about what the mechanism must be.
 

https://www.colorado...ing-its-horizon

[MikeDC]

With 2x500mg NR daily dose for 6 weeks, the only significant effects are seemingly for those with higher blood pressure. A bit dissapointing, but at least it appears safe to consume.

This is a safety clinical trial on healthy adults. People with blood pressure under 140 were considered nonhypertension. So they were included and NR showed benefits even for people with marginal health issues.

Future clinical trials on people with high cholesterol and diabetes will show more health benefits.

With 2x500mg NR daily dose for 6 weeks, the only significant effects are seemingly for those with higher blood pressure. A bit dissapointing, but at least it appears safe to consume.

This is a safety clinical trial on healthy adults. People with blood pressure under 140 were considered nonhypertension. So they were included and NR showed benefits even for people with marginal health issues.

Future clinical trials on people with high cholesterol and diabetes will show more health benefits.
Martens commented, “Nearly 60% of the US population, mostly middle-aged and older adults, have elevated blood pressure or stage 1 hypertension, and nearly two thirds of cardiovascular related events (such as heart attacks) occur in individuals with blood pressure in this range. Though larger scale clinical studies will be needed to assess these endpoints further, these results provide a solid direction for future work.” Douglas Seals, Director of the Integrative Physiology of Aging Laboratory at CU Boulder and senior author on the paper, shared that he and Martens have already submitted a grant request to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to further their research in human subjects. A final decision on the grant funding is expected in early fall, 2018.

Edited by MikeDC, 29 March 2018 - 03:25 PM.

[MikeDC]

One point to note is that By restoring normal levels of NAD+, NR normalizes blood pressure, cholesterol, A1C, etc. drugs like statin and hypertension will lower your chiolesterol and blood pressure even for normal levels. NR normalizes health fundamentally through restoring cell metabolism while drugs manipulate certain aspect of cell function.

[Harkijn]

With 2x500mg NR daily dose for 6 weeks, the only significant effects are seemingly for those with higher blood pressure. A bit dissapointing, but at least it appears safe to consume.

Well, the BP and PWV data are very positive indeed but I must admit that many of the other markers are rather flat even though they are only first indications from a very smallscale trial.

 

From a more practical point of view for us NR users : it is interesting that the researchers decided to split the dose between morning and evening. And NR was taken  at mealtimes.

Edited by Harkijn, 29 March 2018 - 03:40 PM.

[Oakman]

My comments (that are being commented on) were based partially on my own wants and desires, to wit, I do not have high blood pressure, am 25 BMI, and do quite a bit of exercise, but have elevated cholesterol.  So, personally, I would like NR to lower cholesterol, and improve older individuals strength/muscle parameters....and so my disappointment. Understandably, a 6 weeks study is very short (I've been taking NR for 18 months now), but then 1g/day of NR is a high dose, far more than the 250mg/day I'm currently taking. I've tried higher doses but it eventually brought on the joint soreness that some have experienced.

 

The good news is, that with safety concerns addressed, other researchers should feel confident testing more specific NR health possibilities, and over longer periods.

[MikeDC]

My comments (that are being commented on) were based partially on my own wants and desires, to wit, I do not have high blood pressure, am 25 BMI, and do quite a bit of exercise, but have elevated cholesterol. So, personally, I would like NR to lower cholesterol, and improve older individuals strength/muscle parameters....and so my disappointment. Understandably, a 6 weeks study is very short (I've been taking NR for 18 months now), but then 1g/day of NR is a high dose, far more than the 250mg/day I'm currently taking. I've tried higher doses but it eventually brought on the joint soreness that some have experienced.

The good news is, that with safety concerns addressed, other researchers should feel confident testing more specific NR health possibilities, and over longer periods.

Have you compared your cholesterol before and after? All my friends are on 250mg and people with abnormal cholesterol, triglycerides and A1C saw good improvement. One person’s cholesterol dropped 300 points in a few weeks.

This study participants have very low level of cholesterol at 167. It is on the lower normal range. A cholesterol trial with current level over 250 would be a good trial to prove the effectiveness.

Edited by MikeDC, 29 March 2018 - 04:39 PM.

[Oakman]

^ No I haven't tested recently. I should. Kaiser keeps pestering me to do so, I just haven't. Maybe it's dropped, or at least I hope all the exercise and NR has helped a bit in the last 3 years.

[MikeDC]

With 2x500mg NR daily dose for 6 weeks, the only significant effects are seemingly for those with higher blood pressure. A bit dissapointing, but at least it appears safe to consume.

Well, the BP and PWV data are very positive indeed but I must admit that many of the other markers are rather flat even though they are only first indications from a very smallscale trial.

From a more practical point of view for us NR users : it is interesting that the researchers decided to split the dose between morning and evening. And NR was taken at mealtimes.

Remember that NR is not a brute force drug that will lower cholesterol for everyone even if your level is normal. NR can only lower abnormally high cholesterol and abnormally high A1C. So people with perfect health paprameters are not good subjects to study the health benefits.

[bluemoon]

CU Boulder Today

"A pill that staves off aging? It's on the horizon", March 29, 2018

 

"The researchers found that 1,000 mg daily of NR boosted levels of another compound called nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) by 60 percent."

 

 

Yet according to the Elysium study, 500 mg of NR (and 100 mg of pterostilbine) fell from a 90% rise in NAD+ to 55% after 8 weeks and don't know if it falls to 40% after 12 weeks so wouldn't 1000 mg also likle keep falling from 60% to at least 55% after the 8th week? 

 

The trial showed no improvement in exercise or balance while Elysium Basis did at 500mg at the end of the 8th week. This could be because the 6 week trial wasn't long enough and/or because it was pterostilbine that improve balance and walking, not NR.

 

https://www.colorado...ing-its-horizon

 

 

 

 

Edited for typos

Edited by bluemoon, 29 March 2018 - 07:00 PM.

[Michael]

 

My comments (that are being commented on) were based partially on my own wants and desires, to wit, I do not have high blood pressure, am 25 BMI, and do quite a bit of exercise, but have elevated cholesterol. So, personally, I would like NR to lower cholesterol, and improve older individuals strength/muscle parameters....and so my disappointment.

Have you compared your cholesterol before and after? All my friends are on 250mg and people with abnormal cholesterol, triglycerides and A1C saw good improvement. One person’s cholesterol dropped 300 points in a few weeks.

This study participants have very low level of cholesterol at 167. It is on the lower normal range. A cholesterol trial with current level over 250 would be a good trial to prove the effectiveness.

 

 
Leaving aside second-hand anecdotes, we've had several clinical trials now, and none have reported changes in lipids or any aspects of glycemia. And 167 mg/dL is not a "very low level of cholesterol" — rather, as you also said in the next sentence, "It is on the lower normal range."

 

Additionally, as noted previously when the results of this trial were presented in a meeting abstract, "in the Elysium Basis trial, 8 weeks of 250 mg of NR plus 50 mg of PT lowered diastolic BP only (3.4 ± 7.1 mmHG — tho' there was a trend toward a similar reduction in systolic),  with no effect on either parameter at 500 mg of NR plus 100 mg of PT (Table S4). In this trial,  125 mg PT twice daily alone was reported to  lower both systolic (−7.8 mmHg) and diastolic (−7.3 mmHg) BP; 100 mg twice daily led to a trend of reduction of SBP and DBP of similar magnitude to that reported for 250 mg of NR plus 50 mg of PT."

 

And all of these numbers are laughable as compared to something that plausibly retards aging, such as human CR:
 

Both systolic and diastolic blood pressures in the CR group were remarkably low, with values in the range found in 10-year-olds (16) (Table 2). As shown in Table 3, the initial BP levels of the 12 individuals in the CR group who gave us copies of their medical records were similar to those of the comparison group. Large decreases in systolic and diastolic BP occurred during the first year of CR with a further decrease to extremely low levels occurring during the subsequent period [SBP 99 ± 10 mmHg, Diastolic BP 61 ± 6 mmHg].

Long-term calorie restriction is highly effective in reducing the risk for atherosclerosis in humans

 
Despite the title, the effects of CR on CVD risk factors is relatively rapid — months, not years.

 

Even if it panned out beyond BP, "this agent will normalize your excessive X" is medically useful,  but far and away from "this agent will radically improve your health and retard aging."

Edited by Michael, 29 March 2018 - 06:47 PM.

[MikeDC]

My comments (that are being commented on) were based partially on my own wants and desires, to wit, I do not have high blood pressure, am 25 BMI, and do quite a bit of exercise, but have elevated cholesterol. So, personally, I would like NR to lower cholesterol, and improve older individuals strength/muscle parameters....and so my disappointment.

Have you compared your cholesterol before and after? All my friends are on 250mg and people with abnormal cholesterol, triglycerides and A1C saw good improvement. One person’s cholesterol dropped 300 points in a few weeks.

This study participants have very low level of cholesterol at 167. It is on the lower normal range. A cholesterol trial with current level over 250 would be a good trial to prove the effectiveness.

Leaving aside second-hand anecdotes, we've had several clinical trials now, and none have reported changes in lipids or any aspects of glycemia. And 167 mg/dL is not a "very low level of cholesterol" — rather, as you also said in the next sentence, "It is on the lower normal range."

Additionally, as noted previously when the results of this trial were presented in a meeting abstract, "in the Elysium Basis trial, 8 weeks of 250 mg of NR plus 50 mg of PT lowered diastolic BP only (3.4 ± 7.1 mmHG — tho' there was a trend toward a similar reduction in systolic), with no effect on either parameter at 500 mg of NR plus 100 mg of PT (Table S4). In this trial, 125 mg PT twice daily alone was reported to lower both systolic (−7.8 mmHg) and diastolic (−7.3 mmHg) BP; 100 mg twice daily led to a trend of reduction of SBP and DBP of similar magnitude to that reported for 250 mg of NR plus 50 mg of PT."

And all of these numbers are laughable as compared to something that plausibly retards aging, such as human CR:

Both systolic and diastolic blood pressures in the CR group were remarkably low, with values in the range found in 10-year-olds (16) (Table 2). As shown in Table 3, the initial BP levels of the 12 individuals in the CR group who gave us copies of their medical records were similar to those of the comparison group. Large decreases in systolic and diastolic BP occurred during the first year of CR with a further decrease to extremely low levels occurring during the subsequent period [SBP 99 ± 10 mmHg, Diastolic BP 61 ± 6 mmHg].

Long-term calorie restriction is highly effective in reducing the risk for atherosclerosis in humans

Despite the title, the effects of CR on CVD risk factors is relatively rapid — months, not years.

Even if it panned out beyond BP, "this agent will normalize your excessive X" is medically useful, but far and away from "this agent will radically improve your health and retard aging."

All my life i have seen only one person who has cholesterol at 160 range. The good results are in the 180 range and most are over 200. NR will not be able to lower cholesterol beyond 180.

Previous clinical trials have not tested cholesterol or A1C. You need a population of people with abnormal levels to do it. Doing it on healthy people with normal levels will not show positive results.
The unpublished clinical trial ChromaDex did probably showed some health benefit and they decided to publish the results in two papers. One on dose and safety and another on health benefit.

[LawrenceW]

Hello MikeDC.

 

You can add me to your list of friends with good cholesterol. In 2014,  I was total Cholesterol of 168 mg/dL.  After 6 months on my NMN regimen I was 145 mg/dL.

[MikeDC]

Hello MikeDC.

You can add me to your list of friends with good cholesterol. In 2014, I was total Cholesterol of 168 mg/dL. After 6 months on my NMN regimen I was 145 mg/dL.

Good for you. How many grams of NMN did you take? I remember it was like 5 grams per day.

[LawrenceW]

MikeDC

 

Thanks for the kind words.

 

Yes, back in 2015 I was taking 3,500 mg twice per day.  When I restarted in 2016, I halved the dose to 1,800 mg twice per day. When I received my blood work results and saw the exact same results as from the large dose, I halved it again and am currently taking 750 mg twice per day. I'll be doing a full blood panel at the end of April and adjust my dose accordingly.

[Oakman]

MikeDC

 

Thanks for the kind words.

 

Yes, back in 2015 I was taking 3,500 mg twice per day.  When I restarted in 2016, I halved the dose to 1,800 mg twice per day. When I received my blood work results and saw the exact same results as from the large dose, I halved it again and am currently taking 750 mg twice per day. I'll be doing a full blood panel at the end of April and adjust my dose accordingly.

 

Seriously? Do you have a free supply of NMN? It's currently $45 per 7.2g at Alivebynature.com. How do you justify the cost vs. common cholesterol lowering drugs?

[LawrenceW]

Oakman.

 

We have been doing group buys since the beginning.  

 

"How do you justify the cost vs. common cholesterol lowering drugs?"  I agree with you, if that was the only benefit.

 

Please read http://www.longecity...erience-thread/ to see why I would happily pay triple what we are paying now.

 

[midas]

Well, I'm impressed with the 60% increase in NAD, especially considering those on the trial were healthy and older volunteers.

Those with depleted NAD pools would probably benefit much more from the increase. Also the fact that NAD is a big part of everything working correctly I think this study shows a positive outcome....

At least we know it does two things, benefits blood pressure and raises NAD.

Whats not to like?

 

Their is plenty of targeted NR research ongoing now which will hopefully bring good things in the future.

Edited by midas, 29 March 2018 - 10:56 PM.

[Michael]

Curious:

NR also elevated the mean concentration of nicotinamide (NaM), but this was not statistically significant (mean change = 106.5 pmol per mg protein; one-sided 95% CI (−10.03, ∞)). An increase in NaM would suggest an increase in the activity of NAD+-consuming enzymes, which catalyze the breakdown of NAD+ into NaM and ADP-Ribose.

In other studies (human and rodent), NR supplementation has consistently elevated NAM. Most of those studies have been acute studies, but it's still odd: you'd certainly expect it to be raised from first principles and existing data. It would certainly be disappointing and a challenge to the whole NAD+ precursor story if this were indeed a sign that NR does not increase the activity of NAD+-consuming enzymes such as SIRT1, SIRT3, SIRT6, and PARP1.
 

Consistent with the only other report of NR ingestion in humans, we were unable to detect NR concentrations in PBMCs during either treatment condition, despite using optimized recovery methods.

It's true that others have found this difficult: it's unfortunate that they didn't have contact with UWash or Imai (also coincidentally at UWash) to use better methods. Or maybe it's detectable in whole blood but not PBMC ...?

The magnitude by which NAD+ increased in response to NR supplementation was negatively associated with blood cellular NAD+ concentration during the placebo condition (R = −0.49, R2 = 0.25), suggesting a greater response in individuals with naturally low blood cellular NAD+ levels.

Very odd: UWash found "the rise in blood NAD+ (calculated as C_ave,ss − baseline) following NR treatment did not correlate with the baseline blood level on Day 1 (R² = 0.27, p = 0.2)" Moreover, the achieved level, as opposed to the relative amount of rise, was exactly the opposite to what they say here at Colorado:

Figure 3, PLoS ONE 12(12): e0186459, PMID 29211728

 

Here we see reasonably clearly that those with the lowest baseline NAD+ also wound up with the lowest absolute post-supplementation NAD+ (and conversely for the highest) at the same dose and regimen at this trial.
 

 

we've had several clinical trials now, and none have reported changes in lipids or any aspects of glycemia. And 167 mg/dL is not a "very low level of cholesterol" — rather, as you also said in the next sentence, "It is on the lower normal range."

All my life i have seen only one person who has cholesterol at 160 range. The good results are in the 180 range and most are over 200.

You need to extend your social circles beyond the local Carl's Jr. 15% of the US population has TC ≤161 mg/dL; even in the 65-74 age group (the higher half of this trial), 10% of men and somewhat fewer women do.
 

Previous clinical trials have not tested cholesterol or A1C.

I did say "glycemia," not A1c per se. The Elysium, UWash, and now Colorado trials did test fasting glucose, and found no effect. Additionally, Colorado found no effect on fasting insulin, HOMA-IR (a calculated estimate of insulin sensitivity), HOMA-β (a calculated estimate of beta-cell function), and ostensibly found no effect on insulin sensitivity by IVGTT either, tho' it sure looks like NR actually worsened it: 4.53 ± 3.72 vs. 3.82 ± 1.88 (units not reported, but presumably 10^-4 min^-1 uU/mL) (Supplementary Table 7).
 

You need a population of people with abnormal levels to do it. Doing it on healthy people with normal levels will not show positive results.

Gotcha. All those healthy people taking NR should stop wasting their money, then.
 

MikeDC wrote: The unpublished clinical trial ChromaDex did probably showed some health benefit and they decided to publish the results in two papers. One on dose and safety and another on health benefit.

You have an amazing confidence about the results of studies that have not been conducted or published.

[MikeDC]

You need a population of people with abnormal levels to do it. Doing it on healthy people with normal levels will not show positive results.

Gotcha. All those healthy people taking NR should stop wasting their money, then.

MikeDC wrote: The unpublished clinical trial ChromaDex did probably showed some health benefit and they decided to publish the results in two papers. One on dose and safety and another on health benefit.

You have an amazing confidence about the results of studies that have not been conducted or published.

I will repeat again. NR helps to return levels to normal range. Healthy people with blood work in normal range will not see much change in blood work. It doesn’t mean it won’t help to slow down aging or reverse aging for so many people. People keep taking it because of the benefits they feel personally even if science can’t explain it now.

Edited by Michael, 30 March 2018 - 02:21 AM.
trim quotes

[able]

Is 6 weeks too short?

 

Am really disappointed to see nothing here other than 10 point improvement on BP.

 

I'd bet  that older, sicker patients, and longer supplementation period would show more improvement.

 

I was disappointed when Elysium study didn't show as much improvement as I hoped, but at least it showed 7% improvement in mobility.  

 

No improvement at all for mobility here - was Elysium a fluke, or 6 weeks too short for mobility gains?

 

Also concerned about the lack of NAM increase, as Micheal points out 

 

Is it possible 1,000 mg per day is too high?   

 

Or homeostasis kicks in and the new increased NAD+ levels no longer increase Sirt long term?

 

Or Is 6 weeks too just short?  

 

 

 

 

Edited by able, 30 March 2018 - 04:26 AM.

[MikeDC]

Is 6 weeks too short?

Am really disappointed to see nothing here other than 10 point improvement on BP.

I'd bet that older, sicker patients, and longer supplementation period would show more improvement.

I was disappointed when Elysium study didn't show as much improvement as I hoped, but at least it showed 7% improvement in mobility.

No improvement at all for mobility here - was Elysium a fluke, or 6 weeks too short for mobility gains?

Also concerned about the lack of NAM increase, as Micheal points out

Is it possible 1,000 mg per day is too high?

Or homeostasis kicks in and the new increased NAD+ levels no longer increase Sirt long term?

Or Is 6 weeks too just short?

One study doesn’t make a trend. The detection methods used may not be as accurate as other studies. The subjects were also extreme fit with extremely good cholesterol and blood glucose. Time is also short. This study is a phase 1 study on the safety of NR. NR has been shown to be well tolerated. The benefits in cardiovascular health is extra. I think ChromaDex hyped this study too much and people are disappointed when it finally came out.

[TMNMK]

Yes, the most important finding for me is that oral supplementation in humans was shown to increase NAD which was a concern after the recently discussed dissertation showed such a dramatic difference based on route of administration (perhaps due also to the tiny amounts used). So whether or not we saw an improvement in a downstream measurement over the course of six weeks is not terribly concerning to me as I doubt there will be much in the way of forthcoming studies that refute the importance of NAD. Raise your hand, any of you that disagree and think NAD is just hype! Knowing now that NAD levels are significantly elevated in humans as a result of oral supplementation of NR is a very big deal to me. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that it is a very big deal to most people here.

Edited by TMNMK, 30 March 2018 - 12:50 PM.

[ambivalent]

 

 

You need a population of people with abnormal levels to do it. Doing it on healthy people with normal levels will not show positive results.

Gotcha. All those healthy people taking NR should stop wasting their money, then.

 

This is a cheap remark: if the only expected benefit of raising NAD for healthy people was normalising blood pressure, then yes this would be true.  

[able]

Yes, the most important finding for me is that oral supplementation in humans was shown to increase NAD which was a concern after the recently discussed dissertation showed such a dramatic difference based on route of administration (perhaps due also to the tiny amounts used). So whether or not we saw an improvement in a downstream measurement over the course of six weeks is not terribly concerning to me as I doubt there will be much in the way of forthcoming studies that refute the importance of NAD. Raise your hand, any of you that disagree and think NAD is just hype! Knowing now that NAD levels are significantly elevated in humans as a result of oral supplementation of NR is a very big deal to me. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that it is a very big deal to most people here.

 

I do agree elevating NAD+ likely has many health benefits.  I just thought/hoped we would have some proof from this study.

 

However, I do not understand at all why you say "the most important finding for me is that oral supplementation in humans was shown to increase NAD". 

 

I thought the NAD+ increase was already proven with Elysium study that shows 90% at one month and 40% at 12 weeks.   Colorado shows 60% at 6 weeks - right in the middle.  Maybe it confirms Elysium study, but how is that anything new?

 

Were you concerned the NAD+ increase in Elysium was partially due to the Pterostilbene, and now relieved to see that Colorado shows the same benefit for NAD+ without Ptero?

Edited by able, 30 March 2018 - 01:46 PM.

[MikeDC]

Yes, the most important finding for me is that oral supplementation in humans was shown to increase NAD which was a concern after the recently discussed dissertation showed such a dramatic difference based on route of administration (perhaps due also to the tiny amounts used). So whether or not we saw an improvement in a downstream measurement over the course of six weeks is not terribly concerning to me as I doubt there will be much in the way of forthcoming studies that refute the importance of NAD. Raise your hand, any of you that disagree and think NAD is just hype! Knowing now that NAD levels are significantly elevated in humans as a result of oral supplementation of NR is a very big deal to me. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that it is a very big deal to most people here.

I do agree elevating NAD+ likely has many health benefits. I just thought/hoped we would have some proof from this study.

However, I do not understand at all why you say "the most important finding for me is that oral supplementation in humans was shown to increase NAD".

I thought the NAD+ increase was already proven with Elysium study that shows 90% at one month and 40% at 12 weeks. Colorado shows 60% at 6 weeks. Maybe it confirms Elysium study, but how is that anything new?

Were you concerned the NAD+ increase in Elysium was partially due to the Pterostilbene, and now relieved to see that Colorado shows the same benefit for NAD+ without Ptero?

Can’t remember about Elysium study. But this study is double blind and placebo controlled trial and it is published on Nature. Pterostilbene doesn’t raise NAD+ or Sirt1.

[TMNMK]

 

Yes, the most important finding for me is that oral supplementation in humans was shown to increase NAD which was a concern after the recently discussed dissertation showed such a dramatic difference based on route of administration (perhaps due also to the tiny amounts used). So whether or not we saw an improvement in a downstream measurement over the course of six weeks is not terribly concerning to me as I doubt there will be much in the way of forthcoming studies that refute the importance of NAD. Raise your hand, any of you that disagree and think NAD is just hype! Knowing now that NAD levels are significantly elevated in humans as a result of oral supplementation of NR is a very big deal to me. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that it is a very big deal to most people here.

 

I do agree elevating NAD+ likely has many health benefits.  I just thought/hoped we would have some proof from this study.

 

However, I do not understand at all why you say "the most important finding for me is that oral supplementation in humans was shown to increase NAD". 

 

I thought the NAD+ increase was already proven with Elysium study that shows 90% at one month and 40% at 12 weeks.   Colorado shows 60% at 6 weeks - right in the middle.  Maybe it confirms Elysium study, but how is that anything new?

 

Were you concerned the NAD+ increase in Elysium was partially due to the Pterostilbene, and now relieved to see that Colorado shows the same benefit for NAD+ without Ptero?

 

 

Yes good point. Then allow me to revise: "The most important finding for me is that this study further substantiates that..." forgive me as these days I tend to forget about things related to Elysium, but yes indeed they did do a study.

[Harkijn]

 

 

 

 

I thought the NAD+ increase was already proven with Elysium study that shows 90% at one month and 40% at 12 weeks.   Colorado shows 60% at 6 weeks - right in the middle.  Maybe it confirms Elysium study, but how is that anything new?

 

 

 

 

 

This is perhaps the most important point in this discussion and I think bluemoon referred to it already. In the Elysium trial NAD+ fell back over time ( though still not bad at endpoint). There may be some loopback mechanism and this study does not address this. On the contrary, they 'provide evidence' about chronic  supplementation (see title and intro) after giving two small groups of people NR for only six weeks. Even 12 weeks would have been  bit short to be called chronic.

Having said that I see a number of very positive points.

Edited by Harkijn, 30 March 2018 - 02:36 PM.

[stefan_001]

One of the down sides of human studies is that you cannot cut them up an analyze the organs or put them on an accelerated aging path and see what happens when you administer NR. The report unfortunately did not reveal much more than was already known from the earlier published abstract. The most interesting tidbits for me are the speculation that NR supplementation reduces aortic stiffness in humans through a mechanism involving SIRT-1 activation. So one could speculate that NR also raised SIRT1 in other organs and tissues in humans leading to better health. The anecdotal experiences at least point in such direction.

 

 

 

 

Edited by stefan_001, 30 March 2018 - 02:58 PM.