LONGECITY

Phoebus:

I haven't done the math but per mg nicotinamide is about 1/10 the price of NR/NMN

It also raises NAD+ although exactly how much and how it compares to NR/NMN I cant say.

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/10566977

but you could take 3x the amount compared to NR/NMN and it would still be cheaper. So really why bother with NR/NMN at all and just stick to nicotinamide?

 

Pirateer:

Could you take Nicotinamide (NAM) sublingually and get the same benefit you do with sublingual NMN/NR/ABNs new NAD powder?

Phoebus:
no


So you've changed your mind and now believe that NAM doesn't raise NAD+ despite being cheaper? Why the change of mind?

 

 

There is no doubt that NAM raises NAD+ in the liver.  In fact in the Brenner study, per mg, it elevates NAD+ slightly more than NR.  Thats because as Liu show,  most NR and NMN get digested to NAM in the stomach, or end up as NAM before exiting the liver.

 

But it is also clear that NR has some different effects than NAM.  In studies that show a difference, NR is more effective than NAM.  I don't recall ever seeing a study that shows NAM working "better" than NR or NMN.  There might be some, but NR and NMN do seem to be more effective.  It's likely that some small % of NR/NMN supplements do make it through the liver without digestion, which is what makes it more effective than NAM.

 

As for taking NAM sublingual - whats the point?  The reason for taking sublingual NR or NMN is to get them directly to the bloodstream and avoid them being digested to NAM.   Increasing the portion that reaches the bloodstream without being digested to NAM is the goal.

 

Sublingual NAM might also avoid the stomach/liver, and go direct to the blood more quickly, but hard to imagine that being much benefit over swallowing NAM capsules.

Edited by able, 28 October 2018 - 08:44 PM.

Thank you for that detailed answer.

I have found for myself anecdotally that taking even one or two precursors in a cycle has kicked it into gear a bit better. Taking Calcium Pyruvate whenever I react badly to excessive Glutamine/Glutamate/Gluten (ie- an "allergic" reaction - most allergens are really high in Glutamine) eliminates the problem within 20 mins of taking it and even quicker when taken sublingually. I certainly believe in trying things out before ruling them out, so am going to compare sublingual NAM and maybe some Ribose and see how it compares to taking it orally and also compare both to sublingual NR.

Thank you for that detailed answer.

I have found for myself anecdotally that taking even one or two precursors in a cycle has kicked it into gear a bit better. Taking Calcium Pyruvate whenever I react badly to excessive Glutamine/Glutamate/Gluten (ie- an "allergic" reaction - most allergens are really high in Glutamine) eliminates the problem within 20 mins of taking it and even quicker when taken sublingually. I certainly believe in trying things out before ruling them out, so am going to compare sublingual NAM and maybe some Ribose and see how it compares to taking it orally and also compare both to sublingual NR.

 

Ah, thats an interesting idea.  

 

If you believe Turnbuckles theory that taking NAM + Ribose is similar to taking NR (they combine inside the body to form NR), then, taking both sublingual could be an effective way to get NR in the blood stream.

 

Certainly less expensive than NR, and avoids the nasty taste you have with sublingual NR (which is actually NR + C).

 

I believe I still have some of both laying around, and will give that a try myself.

 

But it is also clear that NR has some different effects than NAM.  In studies that show a difference, NR is more effective than NAM.  I don't recall ever seeing a study that shows NAM working "better" than NR or NMN.  There might be some, but NR and NMN do seem to be more effective.  It's likely that some small % of NR/NMN supplements do make it through the liver without digestion, which is what makes it more effective than NAM.

 

 

  Never seen a study that compares NAM vs NR on effectiveness. Could you please point me to them?

Edited by Andey, 12 November 2018 - 01:47 PM.

Never seen a study that compares NAM vs NR on effectiveness. Could you please point me to them?

Look at the two posts I made on oct 15. NAM made it worse for liver lipid accumulation and Parkinson’s disease. I remember there is another paper showing NR is effective against heart failure while NAM is not.

Look at the two posts I made on oct 15. NAM made it worse for liver lipid accumulation and Parkinson’s disease. I remember there is another paper showing NR is effective against heart failure while NAM is not.

 

 Thanks, but its not a direct comparison between two. 

able wrote that there are studies exist that compare effects of NR and NAM administration, that would be interesting. 

Nicotinamide make it worse for rat with Parkinson disease.
There is another paper that shows NR ameliorate Parkinson disease in flies.

https://onlinelibrar....1111/jnc.14599

 

Parkinson's disease is a disease of mitochondria. Fracturing them into pieces with NAM, but without a working parkin gene for mitophagy is of course not going to be beneficial.

 

Still awaiting a NAM vs NR direct comparison.

On the basis of what is known at present it is hard to see why any researcher would pick out NAM for comparison with NR/NMN. The types of molecule are totally different. Also(as discussed in quite a number of previous threads  ) even relatively shortduring intake of NAM has some weird effects:

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/27567458

Thanks, but its not a direct comparison between two.
able wrote that there are studies exist that compare effects of NR and NAM administration, that would be interesting.

How direct do you want? NR worked positively and NAM worked negatively in the same study.

How direct do you want? NR worked positively and NAM worked negatively in the same study.

 

 Reference this study then.

 There is no such study in your posts from oct 15

I do not think there is a study comparing NAM with NR/NMN. From a scientific viewpoint there is not much reason for it. The subject is however discussed in reviews and everywhere I have looked I found that NAM is thought to be not helpful. See for instance:

https://www.longecit...nad-modulation/

On the basis of what is known at present it is hard to see why any researcher would pick out NAM for comparison with NR/NMN. The types of molecule are totally different. Also(as discussed in quite a number of previous threads  ) even relatively shortduring intake of NAM has some weird effects:

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/27567458

 

NAM appears to be safe enough up to 3g

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/11126400

 

and at similar doses also bioavailable  

 

http://diabetes.diab...ontent/44/2/152

Even if all doubts about NAM were assuaged there is no special reason to choose preferentially NAM for comparison with NR/NMN.  Even if the simplest mouse study did not cost a fortune.

Anyway, why not take both if you feel like it? After all let's not forget that all B3s are loosely grouped as nicotinamides but differ in structure as well as in pharmacokinetics. The very fact that we humans possess an NRK1/NRK2 pathway(exclusively accessible to NR/NMN) provides an additional  chance to raise NAD.

 

Another  research project that described their reasons  to concentrate not on NAM but on NR/NMN is the Martens et al. study from March this year.

Note btw that the  study not just found higher NAD in the blood compared to control but also improved resting heartbeat and considerable cardiovascular improvement. This is of huge importance.

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

Edited by Harkijn, 13 November 2018 - 01:35 PM.

Even if all doubts about NAM were assuaged there is no special reason to choose preferentially NAM for comparison with NR/NMN.

Apart from cost to the consumer. And if there are any benefits produced by NR/NMN but not NAM then we would all like to know that the extra cost is worthwhile.
 

Another  research project that described their reasons  to concentrate not on NAM but on NR/NMN is the Martens et al. study from March this year.
Note btw that the  study not just found higher NAD in the blood compared to control but also improved resting heartbeat and considerable cardiovascular improvement. This is of huge importance.
https://www.nature.c...467-018-03421-7

 
From the study you quote:
Study pills, NR standards for metabolite analyses and partial funding support were provided by ChromaDex, Inc.

 

 
From the study you quote:
Study pills, NR standards for metabolite analyses and partial funding support were provided by ChromaDex, Inc.

Whoever descends to this class of 'arguments ' disqualifies  him/herself and finishes off any rational exchange. Game over.

I don’t understand why some people so insisting on using NAM. If you really need a cheap NAD+ precursor, use Niacin. It is better than NAM. It can at least reduce cholesterol.

I don’t understand why some people so insisting on using NAM. If you really need a cheap NAD+ precursor, use Niacin. It is better than NAM. It can at least reduce cholesterol.

 

Hi Mike, I have been away for awhile. Has there been any news on the NR study that was apparently completed in the Spring? I don't remember the specifics, but it was completed, and we are still waiting for the results. I am one of the people that cannot take a full does of NR. I get pounding heart, Afib feelings, and just not comfortable. So I went on a sequential program, of 1 125mg capsule every other day for 60 days, and that worked out ok. I am now on 125 mg a day with no adverse affects. Theory is, anything is better than nothing. Anyway, waiting for those results, have seen some positive developments on this minimal dosage.