David Sinclair appears on Joe Rogan podcas...
Fredrik
07 Feb 2019
What? Are you serious? Sure it didn't improve performance in even younger (10-years-olds) ...
Yes.
NR did not improve V02max in the young (22.9 years old) or the old (71.5 years old). NR improved isometric peak torque and fatigue only in the 70-year-olds.
"NR supplementation did not affect VO2max and concentric peak torque, but improved isometric peak torque by 8% (P = 0.048) and the fatigue index by 15% (P = 0.012) in the old. In contrast, NR supplementation did not exert any redox or physiological effect in the young."
https://sci-hub.tw/h...394-019-01919-4
Edited by Fredrik, 07 February 2019 - 12:53 PM.
Phoebus
07 Feb 2019
2. I said this when that trial was published: this was not a trial of NR, it was a trial of NR + pterostilbene. I don´t know what molecule did what or if they did it together.
On this point I will agree with you. Its kind of a dumb way of going about proving NR is helpful by inserting another chemical that we know very little about into the scenario.
Its bad science, but of course they have a PATENT on that formula and EVERYTHING these days is about IP and NOVEL CHEMICALS so you can have EXCLUSIVE rights so you can charge insane amounts of money and become a billionair even if it means doing shtty science.
Sorry for the rant
LawrenceW
10 Feb 2019
Would you expand on these points, please?
Please see post #267 of this thread:
https://www.longecit...e-thread/page-9
for a detailed expansion on these points.
stefan_001
10 Feb 2019
Please see post #267 of this thread:
https://www.longecit...e-thread/page-9
for a detailed expansion on these points.
See other thread, interesting study outcome. Single 500mg dose of NR, double blind study:
NR supplementation increased NADH (51% young; 59% old) and NADPH (32% young; 38% old) levels in both groups (P < 0.05), decreased F2-isoprostanes by 18% (P < 0.05), and tended to increase glutathione (P = 0.078) only in the old. NR supplementation did not affect VO2max and concentric peak torque, but improved isometric peak torque by 8% (P = 0.048) and the fatigue index by 15% (P = 0.012) in the old.
Edited by stefan_001, 10 February 2019 - 12:03 PM.
MikeDC
21 Feb 2019
I understand that taking NMN sublingually makes it more bioavailable, so you don't need as much as when swallowing. To my knowledge, there is currently only one supplier of NMN for sublingual administration, which is AliveByNature.
(Just FYI, I'm not involved with the company.)
Or, maybe you can crush your current pills and take them under the tongue.
No study has confirmed sublingual NMN or NR actually work. It is all speculation and selling gimmick. Oral NMN doesn’t make sense because it is more expensive than NR and it is 31% heavier than NR, so 31% less effective than NR.
Sinclair is also taking metformin. This study shows 1% metformin or about 30mg per day is toxic. Every other week is the same as not taking it and every other two weeks shortens lifespan.
https://www.nature.c...1514-017-0018-7
LawrenceW
21 Feb 2019
This study shows 1% metformin or about 30mg per day is toxic. Every other week is the same as not taking it and every other two weeks shortens lifespan.
https://www.nature.c...1514-017-0018-7
MikeDC.
In that case you better let Dr. Sinclair, who has been taking 1,000 mg per day of Metformin for the past decade, that he should be almost dead by now.
Edited by LawrenceW, 21 February 2019 - 03:46 PM.
LawrenceW
21 Feb 2019
Sinclair is also taking metformin. This study shows 1% metformin or about 30mg per day is toxic. Every other week is the same as not taking it and every other two weeks shortens lifespan.
https://www.nature.c...1514-017-0018-7
MikeDC
From the study you linked to "EOW and 2WM mice consumed about 1 g metformin kg−1body weight per day, which translates to about 80 mg metformin kg−1body weight in humans,23 a dosage that is more than twice the maximum dose of metformin that patients receive (3 × 850 mg per day). "
Where in the world did you come up with your statement of "This study shows 1% metformin or about 30mg per day is toxic"?
Bushi84
21 Feb 2019
No study has confirmed sublingual NMN or NR actually work. It is all speculation and selling gimmick. Oral NMN doesn’t make sense because it is more expensive than NR and it is 31% heavier than NR, so 31% less effective than NR.
Sinclair is also taking metformin. This study shows 1% metformin or about 30mg per day is toxic. Every other week is the same as not taking it and every other two weeks shortens lifespan.
https://www.nature.c...1514-017-0018-7
After the podcast I asked my doctor what he thinks of Metaformin and he said many of his colleagues take Metformin. So if many doctors, diabetes patients and Dr Sinclair take it, I think it's fair to say it's safe to take.
MikeDC
22 Feb 2019
https://www.nutraing...ging-ingredient
Fredrik
22 Feb 2019
Not sure if this has been posted before. Do you think the deal between ChromaDex and Nestlé adds any value to the NR/NMN debate? Why did Nestlé pay $4 million license fee and choose to source NR from ChromaDex instead of manufacture their own NMN? Nestlé has done research on NAD+ precursors and has published on it. So their decision carry some weight.
https://www.nutraing...ging-ingredient
Not sure it has anything to do with efficacy. Nestlé can include NR in their nutritional shakes because it has GRAS status with the FDA and has published human safety data that NMN does not yet have.
LawrenceW
22 Feb 2019
MikeDC
"Do you think the deal between ChromaDex and Nestlé adds any value to the NR/NMN debate?"
None at all, as you are comparing licensing the branded patent of Niagen versus a naturally occurring, unpatentable dietary supplement that does not have a public company spending a ton of marketing dollars behind it.
stefan_001
22 Feb 2019
As a sidenote there have been several IPR filings for NMN manufacturing methods. So the NMN market may well undergo changes in the coming years once patents applications get awarded.MikeDC
"Do you think the deal between ChromaDex and Nestlé adds any value to the NR/NMN debate?"
None at all, as you are comparing licensing the branded patent of Niagen versus a naturally occurring, unpatentable dietary supplement that does not have a public company spending a ton of marketing dollars behind it.
Edited by stefan_001, 22 February 2019 - 06:29 PM.
able
22 Feb 2019
As a sidenote there have been several IPR filings for NMN manufacturing methods. So the NMN market may well undergo changes in the coming years once patents applications get awarded.
Yes, it may.
But from what I understand, the patents that Chromadex license have to do with methods to produce their NR + C.
I believe anyone can manufacture NR without fear of Chromadex lawyers. It is the NR +C that they are struggling to control.
The NR + C is required, else NR is unstable and cant be sold.
NMN does not have that problem, so anyone can make and sell NMN.
The IP around NMN seems to be combining it with other molecules to make it more effective, like Dr Sinclairs MIB626.
I don't believe they will be able to stop anyone from selling pure NMN, which may be why Nestle would prefer the exclusive, patented alternative NR.
It doesn't imply Nestle believes NR is more effective.
Edited by able, 22 February 2019 - 09:13 PM.
stefan_001
22 Feb 2019
@able The methods to produce NMN in a cheap way get IPRed, the "free" methods will lead to high prices and parties that use those will not survive.
Oakman
22 Feb 2019
Yes, it may.
But from what I understand, the patents that Chromadex license have to do with methods to produce their NR + C.
I believe anyone can manufacture NR without fear of Chromadex lawyers. It is the NR +C that they are struggling to control.
The NR + C is required, else NR is unstable and cant be sold.
NMN does not have that problem, so anyone can make and sell NMN.
The IP around NMN seems to be combining it with other molecules to make it more effective, like Dr Sinclairs MIB626.
I don't believe they will be able to stop anyone from selling pure NMN, which may be why Nestle would prefer the exclusive, patented alternative NR.
It doesn't imply Nestle believes NR is more effective.
Well, maybe...this patent 2017/0204131 seems to cast some doubts on that assertion. I'm really not clear on what this means re: Chromadex and their patents.
The patent by GlaxoSmithKline for "Preparation and Use of Crystalline Beta-D-Nicotinamide Riboside", July 20, 2017 states, "The present invention also describes a method for preparing nicotinamide riboside chloride that is amenable to large scale synthesis." (page 19 - Summary)
Reading the abstract and description in the patent sounds roughly like Chromodex's NR, but perhaps there is a patent knowledgeable person that can chime in on why they can get a patent for what is arguably the same thing?
ABSTRACT: Provided herein are crystalline beta-D nicotinamide chloride compositions and methods of preparation and use thereof...."
