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

Photo
- - - - -

Charles Brenner's Twitter tirade defending against claims NR doesn't raise NAD

nad nr niagen

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
10 replies to this topic

#1 Methuselahbones

  • Guest
  • 17 posts
  • 6
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 19 June 2019 - 05:39 PM


Is anyone able to make sense of Charles Brenner's current stream of Tweets about NR affecting NAD? One of his supporters summarized it as "Asking4aFriend
@FriendAsking4a
·
1h
"NR is difficult to extract from blood & moreover, when you draw blood, you accidentally break some cells releasing PNP, which degrades NR to NAM." Brenner explained why blood tests may not show NR as being present." That sounds like it might be affirming or trying to explain away the claim I posted before about Trammell showing Tru Niagen has no effect on NAD levels. Or it might just be more directed to the bioavailability issue generally. Can anyone more familiar with the testing issues interpret?
  • Ill informed x 1

#2 Oakman

  • Location:CO

Posted 19 June 2019 - 06:49 PM

Sounds correct as given. From what I've read in the recent & distant past, measuring NR/NAD+ levels in the body is very difficult and fraught with miscalculation, due to its transient and volatile nature. Many try to do it in various ways (success/accuracy unknown), and as there is no gold standard for this yet, it's an open question (studies with glowing results notwithstanding) of ANY of the experiments that have been done ... what they actually are able to accomplish in vivo. Of course, I'm no expert, nor a scientist or biochemist, just my understanding.

 

What is needed, for detecting both this and many other molecules in vivo - is a device inline in an artery for the blood, and a needle device to stick in other tissues ... to give instant reading on the desired molecules. 


Edited by Oakman, 19 June 2019 - 06:52 PM.

  • Agree x 1

#3 Phoebus

  • Guest
  • 661 posts
  • 144
  • Location:Upper Midwest, US

Posted 19 June 2019 - 09:49 PM

Interesting, but this should be in that same thread, not a new thread. 



#4 Fredrik

  • Guest
  • 523 posts
  • 125
  • Location:Stockholm, Sweden
  • NO

Posted 20 June 2019 - 07:24 AM

@Methusalebones

You registered here on the 16 of June and all your posts are about Chromadex being snake oil (with a question mark thrown in) and now calling Chromadex employee Charles Brenners tweets "a tirade".

Since Chromadex is in a very infected litigation with Elysium I question your intent and if you have a bone to pick in this fight.

Why are your posts so one-sided in trying to discredit one of these two companies currently in litigation?

Attached Files


Edited by Fredrik, 20 June 2019 - 07:29 AM.

  • Enjoying the show x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#5 Methuselahbones

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 17 posts
  • 6
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 20 June 2019 - 06:07 PM

I made the same post as my first one here originaly on Reddit and a commenter suggested reposting here for more answers (which is why I set up my account). You can find it on r/longevity. I have a longer post history there under the same name if that shows my bona fides. My only connection with either company is as a customer though I am getting pretty disillusioned with NR where it seems like the people qualified to speak about it all have financial incentives one way or another and now accusations of misrepresenting results. I was hoping the posters here who seem to have a better grasp of the underlying science could shed some light. I guess it sounds one-sided because (to my knowledge anyway) only Chromadex is accused of misrepresenting the results. But let me know if I am wrong about that!

Interesting, but this should be in that same thread, not a new thread.


Sorry, did not mean to spam. Is there a way to merge?
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • like x 1

#6 Kevnzworld

  • Guest
  • 866 posts
  • 292
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 20 June 2019 - 06:44 PM

Instead of posting inflammatory spam, I suggest the poster first review the hundreds of pages of scientific discussion based on the large amount of peer reviewed published studies.
There is a large database of studies at this point showing both human bioavailability and NAD increases as a result of NR supplementation.
If the OP wants to take exception to any of these studies specifically, he should reference the study and post why he finds the results invalid.
  • Agree x 3
  • Disagree x 3
  • Needs references x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#7 able

  • Guest
  • 726 posts
  • 327
  • Location:austin texas
  • NO

Posted 20 June 2019 - 08:16 PM

I think "tirade" is a fair description of his outburst the last 2 days.  It seems  angry and defensive, and doesn't do the company any good.

 

That being said, I can certainly see how recent events are upsetting.  Elysium suddenly making up some claim about the Trammel research not showing NR elevates NAD is bunk.


  • Agree x 1

#8 Methuselahbones

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 17 posts
  • 6
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 20 June 2019 - 08:24 PM

That was sort of the intent of posting here tbh. I don't have the background/training to "take exception" to the Trammell paper. But two companies sued about it so my question is whether the people that do have the background can tell whether there are legit issues.(The end of my Reddit title got cut off here but it was "who wants to be a hero and analyze some p-values?") Can see if the claims are true as the lawsuits happen obviously but got told it was in this community's wheelhouse.

Having said all that - uh, I thought NR's bioavailability was a real live issue? It seems to have come up a lot on this board and I thought it was the background debate Charles Brenner might have been responding to in the tweets? Am I missing something?
  • Disagree x 2
  • Ill informed x 1

#9 Oakman

  • Location:CO

Posted 20 June 2019 - 09:11 PM

Having said all that - uh, I thought NR's bioavailability was a real live issue? It seems to have come up a lot on this board and I thought it was the background debate Charles Brenner might have been responding to in the tweets? Am I missing something?

 

Yes, an essential bit. Don't conflate bio-availability with measurement. Just because detection of a molecule is difficulty does not mean it isn't there and doing something. Brenner's statement you quote is simply stating his findings based on research, and is not a "tirade". Your creating something that isn't there.

 

From your original post, your questions are self created, and woven into a conspiracy theory, "That sounds like it might be affirming or trying to explain away the claim I posted before about Trammell showing Tru Niagen has no effect on NAD levels. Or it might just be more directed to the bioavailability issue generally"


  • Disagree x 3
  • Agree x 2

#10 Methuselahbones

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 17 posts
  • 6
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 21 June 2019 - 01:44 AM

Well yeah they're self-created because they're mine. What was part of my question and what I think you're actually confirming is that there is a difference between the NAD levels question (the lawsuits) and the bioavailability question (I changed that from "issue" to "question" so it is not read as raising doubts about bioavailability... I thought there were questions about it but according to the people on the board above, apparently not) I thought Charles Brenner might be talking about the first question but I take it his Twitter should be read as providing answers on the second. Sorry if "tirade" inflamed people. Those tweets definitely had nothing on his current Theranos comparisons lmao
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#11 midas

  • Guest
  • 414 posts
  • 80
  • Location:Manchester....UK
  • NO

Posted 09 July 2019 - 12:23 AM

https://www.globenew...ing-Levels.html

 

 

"On average, study participants consuming 300 mg/day experienced a statistically significant 51% increase in whole blood NAD+ within two weeks. This increase was maintained throughout the remainder of the eight-week study."


  • Agree x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: nad, nr niagen

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users