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

Photo
* * * * - 5 votes

The ChromaDex 140 person study out on Friday

chromadex brenner

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

#1 bluemoon

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

Posted 03 July 2019 - 04:39 PM


Charles Brenner has tweeted that the 140 person NR study on older adults will be published on Friday. The four trial arms are 100 mg, 300 mg, 1000 mg and placebo.

 

Any ideas of what will be revealed? I say no benefit shown for 100 mg, 300 mg but maybe for the placebo group...  :)



#2 Phoebus

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

Posted 03 July 2019 - 04:59 PM

I say at least one participant became immortal 


  • Ill informed x 1
  • Cheerful x 1
  • Agree x 1

#3 Oakman

  • Member
  • 1,005 posts
  • 1,453
  • Location:CO

Posted 03 July 2019 - 05:01 PM

I'd suggest putting out any news on a Friday in a holiday week is a tried and true way to attempt to bury whatever is in it.


  • Good Point x 3
  • Agree x 1

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#4 LawrenceW

  • Member
  • 376 posts
  • 320
  • Location:California

Posted 03 July 2019 - 05:39 PM

Let's hope that they tested past 60 days to see whether homeostasis kicked in or not.


  • Good Point x 1

#5 bluemoon

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

Posted 03 July 2019 - 08:07 PM

Let's hope that they tested past 60 days to see whether homeostasis kicked in or not.

 

It's a 56 day study



#6 Methuselahbones

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

Posted 05 July 2019 - 11:32 AM

The study nature dot com/articles/s41598-019-46120-z

Increases in NAD are good in light of the two lawsuits I posted about before. But otherwise am I wrong this is pretty lame? No effects on blood pressure or weight jumped out at me - I thought the Colorado study had indicated those were promising areas. From Brenner tweeting, I gather there is good news for methylation. But overall it seems pretty boring? Anyone with more experience reading these want to weigh in?
  • Informative x 1

#7 arx

  • Guest
  • 5 posts
  • 5
  • Location:US
  • NO

Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:07 PM

It simply seems to be demonstrating is that chronic supplementation of NR increases NAD metabolites in a dose dependent manner.

 

Rather than identify specific benefits of the supplementation it specifically calls out a lack of adverse health impacts.

 

My guess is that this functions as an argument for an increase in dosing and possibly their FDA GRAS. If you are going to make an argument for something being safe, you want to be clear and concise and not confuse the audience with potential benefits.

 

I was also expecting more but the study did end 2 years ago. My guess is that the research published in the last 2 years will impact the next large human clinical study.

They can't study weight, blood pressure, etc... unless at the outset they randomize and control for that specifically. I'm sure someone would claim p-hacking otherwise.



#8 Andey

  • Guest
  • 618 posts
  • 176
  • Location:Kiev, Ukraine

Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:26 PM

The study nature dot com/articles/s41598-019-46120-z

Increases in NAD are good in light of the two lawsuits I posted about before. But otherwise am I wrong this is pretty lame? No effects on blood pressure or weight jumped out at me - I thought the Colorado study had indicated those were promising areas. From Brenner tweeting, I gather there is good news for methylation. But overall it seems pretty boring? Anyone with more experience reading these want to weigh in?

 

  I believe study was not designed to show difference in those.

I would bet that to show that it works for those(if there is any) you need more time for difference to develop. If they were to design a study for it it would be only two arms, placebo and some NR dosage.

 

P.S. Looks like something funky going on with WBC, though placebo arm changed too.



#9 Fredrik

  • Guest
  • 542 posts
  • 130
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:35 PM

The study nature dot com/articles/s41598-019-46120-z

 

Why hide the link with a "dot com"?

 

Here it is in all its clickable glory: https://www.nature.c...598-019-46120-z



⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#10 Fredrik

  • Guest
  • 542 posts
  • 130
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 05 July 2019 - 01:54 PM

"The primary objective was to evaluate the difference in urinary MeNAM levels between placebo and NIAGEN (100 mg, 300 mg, and 1000 mg) after 8 weeks of supplementation.

 

The secondary objectives were to:

 

- evaluate the rate of increase in urinary MeNAM levels between placebo and NIAGEN (100 mg, 300 mg, and 1000 mg) after 8 weeks of supplementation

- the difference and rate of increase in other NR metabolites levels in blood between placebo and NIAGEN (100 mg, 300 mg, and 1000 mg) after 8 weeks of supplementation

- the difference and rate of increase in other NR metabolites levels in urine between placebo and NIAGEN (100 mg, 300 mg, and 1000 mg) after 8 weeks of supplementation

- the difference in other NR metabolites levels in muscle between placebo and NIAGEN (100 mg, 300 mg, and 1000 mg) after 8 weeks of supplementation.

 

Exploratory outcomes included:

 

- exploring the changes in Resting Energy Expenditure (REE) relative to placebo after 8 weeks of supplementation

- the changes in blood levels of branched-chain amino acids relative to placebo after 8 weeks of supplementation

- the changes in blood levels of high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) relative to placebo after 8 weeks of supplementation.

 

The safety objectives included the difference in vital signs, hematology and clinical chemistry parameters including high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), LDL-C, triglycerides, and total cholesterol between the placebo- and NIAGEN-treated groups, and the difference in the incidence of adverse events between the placebo- and NIAGEN-treated groups.

 

The effect of NIAGEN on plasma HCY levels was determined as a post hoc analysis."


  • Informative x 2

#11 Oakman

  • Member
  • 1,005 posts
  • 1,453
  • Location:CO

Posted 05 July 2019 - 02:44 PM

After reading the study, I found it to be quite positive, especially as a years long user of Niagen (currently @ 300 mgs/day).

 

Namely, the study was given to non-obese, non-diseased men and women, that is, average healthy people like myself.

 

Results showed:

 

1. NAD+ levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells were raised after 8 hrs, confirming previous results.

2. After 7-14 days, NAD+ levels plateaued and remained stable, ie. homeostasis did not occur with administration over 56 days.

3. Plasma and blood metabolites of NAD+ were significantly increased at all dose levels, but esp. at 300 mgs & 1000 mgs.

4. Total cholesterol and LDL-C did NOT increase with Niagen alone, whereas they did increase when dosed with Pterostilbene (ahem ... Basis).

5. NA & NAM administration in previous studies was show to increase homocysteine, Niagen had no effect of homocysteine levels in this study.

6. The 300 mg/day dosing was more efficient at raising NAD+ levels, compared to 100 mgs & 1000 mgs.

6. Adverse events were few and mild, affirming GRAS safety indications.


Edited by Oakman, 05 July 2019 - 02:45 PM.

  • Informative x 3
  • Agree x 1

#12 Methuselahbones

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

Posted 05 July 2019 - 04:20 PM

Homocysteine is interesting but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention because I thought we had seen almost everything else in prior studies. Oh well. Hopefully there is not the same long drought before publication of another human study and hopefully it is something interesting!

#13 Fredrik

  • Guest
  • 542 posts
  • 130
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 05 July 2019 - 04:26 PM

NR at 100 mg increased  NAD+ in blood by 22%.

 

That seem to correspond well with the increase of NAD+ in human subjects blood using inexpensive nicotinic acid at 100 mg a day (divided in three doses).

 

Attached File  Screenshot 2019-07-05 at 18.38.07.png   63.84KB   1 downloads

 

https://www.tandfonl...635589809514728

 

 


Edited by Fredrik, 05 July 2019 - 04:50 PM.

  • Informative x 2
  • like x 1

#14 arx

  • Guest
  • 5 posts
  • 5
  • Location:US
  • NO

Posted 05 July 2019 - 04:58 PM

Homocysteine is interesting but maybe I haven't been paying enough attention because I thought we had seen almost everything else in prior studies. Oh well. Hopefully there is not the same long drought before publication of another human study and hopefully it is something interesting!

 

Agreed. The completed unpublished studies are not terribly compelling apart one from UC Boulder that looks at 6 weeks of physiological function

 

Really looking forward to this one which is a 5 month study that compares the effects of NR on obese and lean twins.

 

https://clinicaltria...how/NCT03951285

 

The author has an established background of doing twin based research so I would expect fairly legitimate findings



#15 Harkijn

  • Member
  • 664 posts
  • 187
  • Location:Amsterdam
  • NO

Posted 05 July 2019 - 06:30 PM

After reading the study, I found it to be quite positive, especially as a years long user of Niagen (currently @ 300 mgs/day).

 

Namely, the study was given to non-obese, non-diseased men and women, that is, average healthy people like myself.

 

Results showed:

 

1. NAD+ levels in peripheral blood mononuclear cells were raised after 8 hrs, confirming previous results.

2. After 7-14 days, NAD+ levels plateaued and remained stable, ie. homeostasis did not occur with administration over 56 days.

3. Plasma and blood metabolites of NAD+ were significantly increased at all dose levels, but esp. at 300 mgs & 1000 mgs.

4. Total cholesterol and LDL-C did NOT increase with Niagen alone, whereas they did increase when dosed with Pterostilbene (ahem ... Basis).

5. NA & NAM administration in previous studies was show to increase homocysteine, Niagen had no effect of homocysteine levels in this study.

6. The 300 mg/day dosing was more efficient at raising NAD+ levels, compared to 100 mgs & 1000 mgs.

6. Adverse events were few and mild, affirming GRAS safety indications.

Thanks for your preliminary abstract Oakman! There is much of interest to digest here in the days ahead. No reason yet to start hoping for the next human study though additiional human studies need to be done and will be done.


  • Enjoying the show x 1

#16 bluemoon

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

Posted 05 July 2019 - 06:43 PM

Thanks for your preliminary abstract Oakman! There is much of interest to digest here in the days ahead. No reason yet to start hoping for the next human study though additiional human studies need to be done and will be done.

 

There are at least two more studies that should be out by the end of the year including one by Elysium on acute kidney failure.



⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#17 bluemoon

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

Posted 11 July 2019 - 08:57 PM

Does anyone know why the Boulder Colorado study showed NAD+ levels up 60% after 6 weeks, whereas this study showed NAD+ levels 140% after 8 weeks? The Elysium Basis study showed a decline from 90% increase at week 4 to a 55% increase at week 8 with 500 mg NR/100 mg of pterostilbine.


  • unsure x 1
  • Agree x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: chromadex, brenner

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users