• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

David Sinclair appears on Joe Rogan podcast today

sinclair

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
75 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#61 Fredrik

  • Guest
  • 535 posts
  • 128
  • Location:Stockholm, Sweden
  • NO

Posted 07 February 2019 - 12:41 PM

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.

  • Agree x 1

#62 Phoebus

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 666 posts
  • 144
  • Location:Upper Midwest, US

Posted 07 February 2019 - 03:10 PM

 

 

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


  • Agree x 2

#63 LawrenceW

  • Guest
  • 361 posts
  • 311
  • Location:California

Posted 10 February 2019 - 03:38 AM

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.


  • Informative x 1

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#64 stefan_001

  • Guest
  • 1,070 posts
  • 222
  • Location:Munich

Posted 10 February 2019 - 11:30 AM

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.


#65 MikeDC

  • Guest
  • 1,331 posts
  • -443
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 21 February 2019 - 02:39 PM

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
  • Ill informed x 3
  • unsure x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#66 LawrenceW

  • Guest
  • 361 posts
  • 311
  • Location:California

Posted 21 February 2019 - 03:45 PM

 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.

  • Good Point x 2
  • Cheerful x 2
  • like x 1

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#67 LawrenceW

  • Guest
  • 361 posts
  • 311
  • Location:California

Posted 21 February 2019 - 03:54 PM

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"?


  • Agree x 1

#68 Bushi84

  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 21 February 2019 - 10:21 PM

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. 


  • Informative x 1
  • Agree x 1

#69 MikeDC

  • Guest
  • 1,331 posts
  • -443
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 22 February 2019 - 01:28 PM

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
  • Good Point x 1
  • Disagree x 1

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#70 Fredrik

  • Guest
  • 535 posts
  • 128
  • Location:Stockholm, Sweden
  • NO

Posted 22 February 2019 - 01:48 PM

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.
  • Needs references x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#71 LawrenceW

  • Guest
  • 361 posts
  • 311
  • Location:California

Posted 22 February 2019 - 03:13 PM

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.

 

 



#72 stefan_001

  • Guest
  • 1,070 posts
  • 222
  • Location:Munich

Posted 22 February 2019 - 06:28 PM

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.

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.

Edited by stefan_001, 22 February 2019 - 06:29 PM.


#73 able

  • Guest
  • 739 posts
  • 334
  • Location:austin texas
  • NO

Posted 22 February 2019 - 09:12 PM

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.

  • Agree x 3

#74 stefan_001

  • Guest
  • 1,070 posts
  • 222
  • Location:Munich

Posted 22 February 2019 - 09:37 PM

@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.


  • Needs references x 1

#75 Oakman

  • Location:CO

Posted 22 February 2019 - 09:45 PM

. because you can't delete 

 


Edited by Oakman, 22 February 2019 - 10:15 PM.


⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#76 Oakman

  • Location:CO

Posted 22 February 2019 - 10:13 PM

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...."







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: sinclair

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users