This topic is locked
Posted 26 June 2018 - 07:52 PM
Charles Brenner told Dr. Drew that the Copenhagen trial of 40 obese men showed that over 12 weeks fat in the liver dropped 10% from 11% to 9.8% among those who took 2000 mg of NR a day. Weight loss was not noticed.
podcast #333
http://drdrew.com/pl...r-drew-podcast/
Posted 28 June 2018 - 12:55 PM
Dr. Brenner leaked the results of a clinical trial in this podcast. NR reduced lipid content in the liver from 11% to 9.8% in 12 weeks. That is a reduction of 47% in one year.
http://drdrew.com/pl...r-drew-podcast/
This is the clinical trial.
https://clinicaltria...riboside&draw=2
Posted 28 June 2018 - 01:11 PM
No Mike, that is a reduction of 11% over a 12 week period. You don't know if the decline continues at the same rate past the 12 weeks, or if it levels off, or if a homeostatic feedback loop kicks in and it increases. For you to extrapolate to a reduction of 47% in one year is simply irresponsible.
Posted 28 June 2018 - 02:44 PM
No Mike, that is a reduction of 11% over a 12 week period. You don't know if the decline continues at the same rate past the 12 weeks, or if it levels off, or if a homeostatic feedback loop kicks in and it increases. For you to extrapolate to a reduction of 47% in one year is simply irresponsible.
Posted 28 June 2018 - 05:32 PM
Nobody is stupid enough to think like that.
must resist urge.....
seriously though MIke in the OP you did in fact make a mistake, best to just admit it and move on
having said that, very interesting study and thanks for posting
Posted 11 July 2018 - 02:52 PM
Fourth Published Clinical Trial Confirms Long-Term Safety of NIAGEN® Supplementation at High Doses and Shows Potential for Improvement in Liver Health
https://finance.yaho...ote/CDXC?p=CDXC
Posted 11 July 2018 - 02:55 PM
Finally published. 2 grams a day is safe and free from side effects.
2% absolute drop in liver fat (10% of the total liver fat).
Chromadex stock went up yesterday and today, so they must like something, but seems quite underwhelming to me.
Posted 11 July 2018 - 02:57 PM
Good to see is safe at 2 grams a day, but otherwise seems underwhelming to me. Surprised that Chromadex stock went up yesterday and today, seemingly in response to this. I expected/hoped for so much more.
Results
Insulin sensitivity, endogenous glucose production, and glucose disposal and oxidation were not improved by NR supplementation. Similarly, NR supplementation had no effect on resting energy expenditure, lipolysis, oxidation of lipids, or body composition. No serious adverse events due to NR supplementation were observed and safety blood tests were normal.
12 wk of NR supplementation in doses of 2000 mg/d appears safe, but does not improve insulin sensitivity and whole-body glucose metabolism in obese, insulin-resistant men.
Edited by able, 11 July 2018 - 03:01 PM.
Posted 11 July 2018 - 03:47 PM
Posted 11 July 2018 - 04:18 PM
2% absolute drop in liver fat (10% of the total liver fat).
Where did you see the 10% figure? Charles Brenner said those with 5% or greater fat by volume in the liver were in the study. I think the result is pretty impressive, a 20% to 40% decrease in fat assuming 5% to 10% fatty liver participated in the trial, but would like to see 250 mg and 500 mg tested for fatty liver as well.
I get the sense that NR won't be widely used by healthy people but maybe cognitive function results will be good so expand the number of those over 60 who take it.
Posted 11 July 2018 - 04:31 PM
Where did you see the 10% figure? Charles Brenner said those with 5% or greater fat by volume in the liver were in the study. I think the result is pretty impressive, a 20% to 40% decrease in fat assuming 5% to 10% fatty liver participated in the trial, but would like to see 250 mg and 500 mg tested for fatty liver as well.
I get the sense that NR won't be widely used by healthy people but maybe cognitive function results will be good so expand the number of those over 60 who take it.
Right. Looking at just those with fatty liver shows greater response.
Overall, I see the study quotes an 18% relative drop:
"Assessed by MR spectroscopy, we observed an absolute reduction in the HLC of 2% (relative reduction 18%) in the NR supplemented group"
Useful, but a far cry from the results in mice.
These are all obese men, with high blood sugar levels and insulin resistance. Surprised it didn't help that at all.
Posted 11 July 2018 - 04:50 PM
These are all obese men, with high blood sugar levels and insulin resistance. Surprised it didn't help that at all.
I didn't see the high sugar levels mentioned in the report. Maybe once a detailed report comes out it will be more clear.
"Objective
The aim of this study was to test the safety of dietary NR supplementation over a 12-wk period and potential to improve insulin sensitivity and other metabolic parameters in obese, insulin-resistant men."
In an investigator-initiated randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, and parallel-group designed clinical trial, forty healthy, sedentary men with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2, age-range 40–70 y were randomly assigned to 12 wk of NR (1000 mg twice daily) or placebo. We determined the effects of NR supplementation on insulin sensitivity by a hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp and substrate metabolism by indirect calorimetry and labeled substrates of tritiated glucose and palmitate. Body composition and fat mass distribution were determined by whole-body dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and MRI scans, and measurements of intrahepatic lipid content were obtained by MR spectroscopy.
It would seem to me, if they really wanted to test insulin sensitivity, they should have included Type 2 diabetics in the study. If NR is working toward homeostasis as some may believe (me), it wouldn't necessarily show a change in a relatively healthy individual. In a diseased individual (Diabetes) it would show up relatively quickly or not at all compared to placebo (blood checks, medications changes etc...).
Posted 11 July 2018 - 05:57 PM
I didn't see the high sugar levels mentioned in the report. Maybe once a detailed report comes out it will be more clear.
"forty healthy, sedentary men with a body mass index (BMI) > 30 kg/m2[/size], age-range 40–70 y were randomly assigned to 12 wk of NR (1000 mg twice daily) or placebo. ..."
It would seem to me, if they really wanted to test insulin sensitivity, they should have included Type 2 diabetics in the study. If NR is working toward homeostasis as some may believe (me), it wouldn't necessarily show a change in a relatively healthy individual. In a diseased individual (Diabetes) it would show up relatively quickly or not at all compared to placebo (blood checks, medications changes etc...).
Edited by Michael, 23 September 2018 - 03:20 AM.
trim quotes; remove illegal website
Posted 11 July 2018 - 06:08 PM
I think this is good news. NR is an "OVERALL" health supplement so pretty nice it helps liver too.
NR hasn't been shown to be an "overall" health supplement yet, whatever that means. So far we know from trials:
1) 250 mg of NR doesn't improve balance or walking speed but 500 mg of NR with 100 mg of pterostilbine might improve both by 7%.
2) 1000 mg of NR lowers blood pressure (systolic) by 10 points for those with hypertension. We don't know about 250 mg or 500 mg.
3) 1000 mg of NR may make arteries somewhat more flexible.
4) 2000 mg of NR lowers fat levels in those with fatty liver by 20%. We don't know about 250 mg or 500 mg.
5) NR doesn't affect insulin sensitivity in the obese.
Edited by bluemoon, 11 July 2018 - 06:09 PM.
Posted 11 July 2018 - 06:18 PM
NR hasn't been shown to be an "overall" health supplement yet, whatever that means. So far we know from trials:
1) 250 mg of NR doesn't improve balance or walking speed but 500 mg of NR with 100 mg of pterostilbine might improve both by 7%.
2) 1000 mg of NR lowers blood pressure (systolic) by 10 points for those with hypertension. We don't know about 250 mg or 500 mg.
3) 1000 mg of NR may make arteries somewhat more flexible.
4) 2000 mg of NR lowers fat levels in those with fatty liver by 20%. We don't know about 250 mg or 500 mg.
5) NR doesn't affect insulin sensitivity in the obese.
Nice summary. Slight clarification for those that may copy/paste your list:
4) 2000 mg of NR lowers fat levels IN THE LIVER in those with fatty liver by 20%. We don't know about 250 mg or 500 mg.
Obviously, not 20% total body fat.
Also, you don't list that it has no effect on blood sugar levels, although maybe that is implied in "doesn't affect insulin sensitivity"?
Posted 11 July 2018 - 06:22 PM
Maybe they didn't specifically mention blood sugar levels - I didn't read it completely yet.
But table 3 shows blood glucose and HBA1c levels. Both NR and Placebo group shows a slight, but not significant, INCREASE.
The fact that NR and Placebo both showed a small increase tells me what I already figured. These are humans, they are in a trial but aren't being fed the same specific diet and undergoing the same physical activities. Some variation is to be expected. Both up a wee bit tells me it's probably a non factor over a 12 week period.
The A1C's are the same % wise.
Posted 11 July 2018 - 06:56 PM
Nice summary. Slight clarification for those that may copy/paste your list:
4) 2000 mg of NR lowers fat levels IN THE LIVER in those with fatty liver by 20%. We don't know about 250 mg or 500 mg.
Obviously, not 20% total body fat.
Also, you don't list that it has no effect on blood sugar levels, although maybe that is implied in "doesn't affect insulin sensitivity"?
I think most understood "fat" to be in the liver since the focus was on those with fatty liver. I assumed "doesn't affect insulin sensitivity" is the same as has no effect on sugar levels.
I've long suspected that NR would help those with metabolic health issues to an extent at 500 mg but that more significant benefits would come from a drug that might come out in 2019 or 2020 (what I thought in 2015) that would be based on NR and cost $3 to $5 a day.
If the cognitive function trials show more than slight improvements, that is, over 5% on tests, then many over 40 will likely be interested.
Posted 11 July 2018 - 07:02 PM
Nice summary. Slight clarification for those that may copy/paste your list:
4) 2000 mg of NR lowers fat levels IN THE LIVER in those with fatty liver by 20%. We don't know about 250 mg or 500 mg.
Obviously, not 20% total body fat.
Also, you don't list that it has no effect on blood sugar levels, although maybe that is implied in "doesn't affect insulin sensitivity"?
I think its very positive 2000g has no adverse effects, that opens the options for a whole lot more try outs e.g. heart failure.
For me NAD+ is a supplement that helps me stay healthy. I should be 30kg heavier to reach the same BMI as these folks - that means 40% extra weight = fat. While I do see NR as a super supplement I also believe there is a limit to what it can do. When you are too far out of normal range you probably need a lot more than only NR to get back to normal range.A much interesting study would be "exercise + NR" versus "exercise alone"
Edited by stefan_001, 11 July 2018 - 07:03 PM.
Posted 11 July 2018 - 08:11 PM
I think its very positive 2000g has no adverse effects, that opens the options for a whole lot more try outs e.g. heart failure.
Last month, Charles Brenner said he knows the results of NR on 30 heart failure patients in the U of Washington trial but that he couldn't discuss the results yet. That study ended last month where patients took 250 mg twice a day in week 1 then 500 mg twice a day in week 2 and by week 4 took 1000 mg twice a day until the final week 12.
Brenner mentioned his heart failure/NR mouse study which had great results in another more recent interview and wonder if he would say much about that if the human heart failure trial wasn't positive. With mice, taking NR helped prevent heart failure as well as lifted them out of it.
https://clinicaltria...how/NCT03423342
Posted 11 July 2018 - 08:23 PM
Last month, Charles Brenner said he knows the results of NR on 30 heart failure patients in the U of Washington trial but that he couldn't discuss the results yet. That study ended last month where patients took 250 mg twice a day in week 1 then 500 mg twice a day in week 2 and by week 4 took 1000 mg twice a day until the final week 12.
Brenner mentioned his heart failure/NR mouse study which had great results in another more recent interview and wonder if he would say much about that if the human heart failure trial wasn't positive. With mice, taking NR helped prevent heart failure as well as lifted them out of it.
Thats true, typically people never mention something if its not positive. There are also indications NMN is usefull in HF.
Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:37 AM
notice what they are testing on - blood glucose and fatty liver
why?
because both are related to obesity and weight loss. THAT right there is how you SELL and MARKET a new supplement
"OMG! this pill melts the fat off! Its a weight loss program in a bottle! Get 50% off today with this coupon code!"
its all about marketing. But I am telling you right now they are barking up the wrong tree. Look at the personal experience threads and people are seeing great results with all kinds of things, notably skin, energy, and arthritic joints.
I could not possibly care less about its insulin or fatty liver properties. Insulin problems are like super easy to take care of (barring serious genetic disorders or what have you)
Intermittent fasting , healthy diet, limit sugar, excersice. Boom. Problems solved.
NR/NMN will be proven to do amazing things, mark my words. But not until they stop trying to market it as yet another stupid freaking weight loss supplement.
Posted 12 July 2018 - 06:17 AM
NR/NMN will be proven to do amazing things, mark my words. But not until they stop trying to market it as yet another stupid freaking weight loss supplement.
Your words don't mean anything until human trials back them up.
A year ago, Leonard Guarante said on a radio show that NR (Eysium Basis) did not show weight loss in their 12 week trial. "We saw no evidence of weight loss" is a strong statement.
I've never heard Chromadex say it causes weight loss either.
Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:10 PM
Looking over the data again this morning. I actually don't care for the wording they used in the results.
The "not improved" part.
Looking at the data in table 3, the participants in the NR treatment side were healthy and didn't need improvement in any of the areas mentioned in the quote above. An HbA1c, % of 5.6 is normal. I think if those values had been listed in the results as unchanged it would be more accurate than "not improved". As a diabetic for over 18 years who has had an HbA1c, % of over 13 and can't even think about how great a 5.6 would be I think the "not improved" sends a message as if we should be expecting a change from the group that was studied.
Run the study again with Type 2 diabetics.
My NAFLD numbers have gotten better on NR.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
