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

Photo
- - - - -

At what age should you start taking NR?

age contradiction

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

#1 Jrausis

  • Guest
  • 19 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Switzerland
  • NO

Posted 26 March 2019 - 01:57 AM


Hey guys,

 

I've seen many contradictions regarding NR.

 

I'm 28 in a few months and I'd like to know if I'm too young to take NR.

 

To be honest, I've looked before and found contradictory claims about it. 

 

I hope someone can help me know if it is a good idea.

 

My grandfather is 83 and I want to buy NR for him (and probably resveratrol too)...

 

But I was wondering if I could buy some for me too... I've seen some people saying 25 is fine, other saying before 35 is useles... or even dangerous.

 

What to do? Who to believe? Please help. Thank you!



#2 male_1978

  • Guest
  • 101 posts
  • 25

Posted 26 March 2019 - 07:54 AM

I believe its not too useful. Two reasons for that believe:

 

1) Evolution has already optimized the metabolism of a young body to run very well. If having more NAD+ would be such an advantage, evolution would have already invented a way to get it, especially if it is something so simple to evolve as modulating the amount of existing molecules. 

 

In contrast to that, any changes beyond 30 are not optimized by evolution because you have already spread your genes. 

 

2) There is evidence that too much Nad+ dysregulates the metabolism in young, healthy rats:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/30007015

 

But i am just speculating, feel free to prove me wrong.



#3 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 742 posts
  • 90
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 26 March 2019 - 01:14 PM

A 34 year old friend, who looks closer to 28, tried 250 mg for three weeks, and he said he didn't notice anything. 



⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#4 Jrausis

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 19 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Switzerland
  • NO

Posted 26 March 2019 - 03:31 PM

I believe its not too useful. Two reasons for that believe:

 

1) Evolution has already optimized the metabolism of a young body to run very well. If having more NAD+ would be such an advantage, evolution would have already invented a way to get it, especially if it is something so simple to evolve as modulating the amount of existing molecules. 

 

In contrast to that, any changes beyond 30 are not optimized by evolution because you have already spread your genes. 

 

2) There is evidence that too much Nad+ dysregulates the metabolism in young, healthy rats:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/30007015

 

But i am just speculating, feel free to prove me wrong.

 

I must respectfuly disagree.

 

The Evolution argument is valid for old people too. If having more NAD+ would be such an advantage, evolution would have already invented a way to get it... right?

 

The gene spreading argument doesn't convince me as men can spread their gene pretty much until the day they die.

 

Thanks for the second point with the study, is it the only study about NAD+ on young rats?


Edited by Jrausis, 26 March 2019 - 03:31 PM.


#5 dosquito

  • Guest
  • 245 posts
  • 26
  • Location:east coast

Posted 26 March 2019 - 05:09 PM

In general, I think this forum tends to underestimate how much people have aged by their late 20s.

 

I'm 27 and almost everyone I know has aged dramatically since 22.


  • Good Point x 1

#6 male_1978

  • Guest
  • 101 posts
  • 25

Posted 26 March 2019 - 05:11 PM

I must respectfuly disagree.

 

The Evolution argument is valid for old people too. If having more NAD+ would be such an advantage, evolution would have already invented a way to get it... right?

 

The gene spreading argument doesn't convince me as men can spread their gene pretty much until the day they die.

 

 

I am not sure about this. Its probably true on an individual level: The longer you live, the more you can spread your genes.

 

But how is it on the level of a group of people? Lets say you have a tribe A in the stone age, all of which get mature with 15 and keep having offsprings until they are very very old. Another tribe B also gets mature with 15, but people die with 30. Which one will be more sucessful on the long run?

 

Tribe A will have a slower rate of evolution because the age difference between generations is higher. It might even have problems with incest, when 70-year old are sexually as active as 15-year olds. Younger individuals will also compete more for food with the older ones. Tribe B on the other hand will always have a younger population, fast evolution and less genetic errors. 

 

Besides, evolution has already made it so that women can only have children while they are relatively young. From an evolutionary view, whats the point of keeping their health high for a long time after they raised their children? Whats the point of keeping the health of older men high, when there are plenty of younger men available, ready to fertilize? For society, there is no point in that, they just compete for ressources.

Ok, this was a pure evolutionary standpoint, its of course not what we want. My only point is, that its pretty clear that its an evolutionary advantage when young individuals are healthy, therefore evolution will probably optimize it. Its not so clear for much older people. 



#7 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,449 posts
  • 2,002
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 26 March 2019 - 09:59 PM

I think you could probably take some, but probably small amounts.

 

Some people have argued that if you take some supplements and hormones that are in excess of what an optimal healthy body would produce...then the supplementation might down-regulate your natural systems that produce those hormones and NAD+ and what-not.



#8 Jrausis

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 19 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Switzerland
  • NO

Posted 26 March 2019 - 10:34 PM

I think you could probably take some, but probably small amounts.

 

Some people have argued that if you take some supplements and hormones that are in excess of what an optimal healthy body would produce...then the supplementation might down-regulate your natural systems that produce those hormones and NAD+ and what-not.

 

Thanks for your answer, what would be "a small amount" for you?

 

@male_1978 - I get your point, thanks.



#9 male_1978

  • Guest
  • 101 posts
  • 25

Posted 27 March 2019 - 06:52 AM

In general, I think this forum tends to underestimate how much people have aged by their late 20s.

 

I'm 27 and almost everyone I know has aged dramatically since 22.

 

Yes, but there are different mechanisms of aging working here.

 

For young people a lot of visible aging is done by different factors, like:

 

- lifestyle (sun exposure, smoking, alcohol, unhealthy eating...)

- hormone changes. You probably have less growth hormone when you are 30 than with 20 and you surely dont want to change that

- Visible changes in body fat distribution in the face by gravity 

 

Question is, does Nad+ play a major role here? Or could it be that at that age there is enough Nad+ available anyway and you are putting too much oil into an already perfectly running engine? 

 

I would expect that many age related changes happen during that time, regardless of how many Nad+ you have in your cells. 

 

But why dont you try it for a month or so? Something like 250 mg / day? You could watch out for changes in energy level and hair/skin.



⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#10 Jrausis

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 19 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Switzerland
  • NO

Posted 27 March 2019 - 10:40 AM

But why dont you try it for a month or so? Something like 250 mg / day? You could watch out for changes in energy level and hair/skin.

 

 

Right, good idea.



#11 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 16,449 posts
  • 2,002
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 27 March 2019 - 06:48 PM

I don't have a good idea on what a "small amount" might be. Maybe 25% of what is the normal recommended dose. LEF recommends 250 mg NR per day for adults, so less than that.



#12 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 742 posts
  • 90
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 27 March 2019 - 07:11 PM

Right, good idea.

 

Sadly, I had flawless skin before taking NR so I couldn't enjoy seeing improvements but it took six months at 250 mg a day for me to notice I clearly had more or thicker hair. When I began at 125 mg, I noticed lucid dreaming and waking up alert within a day, both of which surprised me. Like Sinclair with NMN, I never get hangovers anymore either. 

 

Does anyone know at what age NAD+ begins to decline? Around 20? 



#13 Jrausis

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 19 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Switzerland
  • NO

Posted 27 March 2019 - 07:13 PM

I don't have a good idea on what a "small amount" might be. Maybe 25% of what is the normal recommended dose. LEF recommends 250 mg NR per day for adults, so less than that.

 

But don't they recommend 250mg/day because more would be too expensive?

 

I've heard a Podcast of Benner saying that 500mg/day for an adult wasn't that much, and would make an effect only with a good diet and exercising...



#14 Bushi84

  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Belgium

Posted 27 March 2019 - 08:34 PM

Wow, good i popped my head in here. Am 34 and at the moment and am taking 250mg NR and 4x 125mg sublingual NMN. 

Am still taking the NR cause after reading the claims by alive by nature that NR is pretty much blocked by the liver and I already bought it, i saw nothing wrong with it. 

 

But am losing my hair since I was 28, so maybe that was also do of my NAD+ levels dropping. Gonna drop my dose a bit though. 



#15 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 742 posts
  • 90
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 27 March 2019 - 09:16 PM

But don't they recommend 250mg/day because more would be too expensive?

 

I've heard a Podcast of Benner saying that 500mg/day for an adult wasn't that much, and would make an effect only with a good diet and exercising...

 

But the Elysium study showed healthy older adults who took 500 mg of NR and 100 mg of pterostilbine a day for 8 weeks saw an average improvement of 8% in a walking test and 8% improvement in a balance test. That wasn't just for people who at well and exercised, although none were obese. 

 

Brenner has said he doesn't think pterostilbine does much so if correct, leaves just NR. Of course, he may be wrong.


  • Good Point x 1

#16 Jrausis

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 19 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Switzerland
  • NO

Posted 27 March 2019 - 09:19 PM

But the Elysium study showed healthy older adults who took 500 mg of NR and 100 mg of pterostilbine a day for 8 weeks saw an average improvement of 8% in a walking test and 8% improvement in a balance test. That wasn't just for people who at well and exercised, although none were obese. 

 

Brenner has said he doesn't think pterostilbine does much so if correct, leaves just NR. Of course, he may be wrong.

 

Well, of course he says pterostilbine doesn't help, since only his competition uses it... :)


  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#17 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 742 posts
  • 90
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 28 March 2019 - 01:07 AM

Well, of course he says pterostilbine doesn't help, since only his competition uses it... :)

 

I wondered about that. Brenner also said resveratrol was worthless but studies don't support that.   


  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: age, contradiction

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users