3 replies to this topic

[pleiotropic]

SENS have weighed in on NR supplementation with their own analysis of the mouse research on NMN (Posted 23rd November 2015):

 

http://sens.org/rese...ng-mitochondria

[warner]

SENS have weighed in on NR supplementation with their own analysis of the mouse research on NMN (Posted 23rd November 2015):

 

http://sens.org/rese...ng-mitochondria

Those criticisms seem pretty lame.  A few quick thoughts:

 

- Their general criticism that there is a lot we don't know yet about NR (like long-term effects) is a reason to be cautious, but not pessimistic.

 

- They're stuck thinking that aging = damage, rather than considering that aging may be a program whose momentum can be slowed, perhaps even reversed.

 

- They make it sound like NR is only being promoted by untrustworthy "supplement companies".  Take a look at who is involved with Elysium Health (http://www.elysiumhealth.com/team) and make up your own mind about that.

 

- With respect to price, I'd be willing to pay $1 per day (currently near the best deal for 250 mg/d NR) for simply a better B3 supplement (i.e., benefits of NA and NAM w/o drawbacks).  So their reference to needing to spend $400-$500 per month to get the benefits seen in mice is misleading.

Edited by warner, 24 November 2015 - 02:38 PM.

[midas]

 

SENS have weighed in on NR supplementation with their own analysis of the mouse research on NMN (Posted 23rd November 2015):

 

http://sens.org/rese...ng-mitochondria

Those criticisms seem pretty lame.  A few quick thoughts:

 

- Their general criticism that there is a lot we don't know yet about NR (like long-term effects) is a reason to be cautious, but not pessimistic.

 

- They're stuck thinking that aging = damage, rather than considering that aging may be a program whose momentum can be slowed, perhaps even reversed.

 

- They make it sound like NR is only being promoted by untrustworthy "supplement companies".  Take a look at who is involved with Elysium Health (http://www.elysiumhealth.com/team) and make up your own mind about that.

 

- With respect to price, I'd be willing to pay $1 per day (currently near the best deal for 250 mg/d NR) for simply a better B3 supplement (i.e., benefits of NA and NAM w/o drawbacks).  So their reference to needing to spend $400-$500 per month to get the benefits seen in mice is misleading.

 

 

I agree with all you say there....

 

Also, they leave out the fact that there is LOT of ongoing research on NR in different parts of the world and they completely omit to reference any of the positive results that are being seen by these research facilities......

About the only part of it I actually agree with is that they point out that it was actually NMN that was use by Sinclair and nor NR, I am sick of seeing NR supplement company's use that Sinclair study to promote NR

Other than that, really not a very well researched article in my opinion, and omits lots of important information that we have on NR to date.

[Bryan_S]

SENS have weighed in on NR supplementation with their own analysis of the mouse research on NMN (Posted 23rd November 2015):

 

http://sens.org/rese...ng-mitochondria

 

Thanks for finding that. I agree Michael Rae only looked at NR thru the lens of Sinclair's research and possibly only NR venders who have been plagiarizing David Sinclair's work on NMN. Its time to unhitch the Sinclair's caboose form the Nicotinamide Riboside train, its an utter embarrassment.

 

Rae OMITTED or Failed to find research by:

Anthony A. Sauve WEILL MEDICAL COLLEGE OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY

Charles Brenner University of Iowa and Dartmouth

Leonard Guarente Massachusetts Institute of Technology

and a host of many other key researchers and their postdoctoral students who are to numerous to mention. In fact David Sinclair is one of Leonard Guarente's postdoctoral researchers. 

 

Here are some basic NR searches based on:

|| Cornell University || Dartmouth || University of Iowa || Massachusetts Institute of Technology || Washington University || University of Copenhagen || National Institutes of Health ||  Scripps || Spinal Cord || Neuron || Cockayne Syndrome || Mitochondria || Biogenesis || Sirtuin SIRT || Cancer || Once you know the players or have read one paper and have pulled some keywords you turn up more study reading than you could cover in a week.

 

Since David Sinclair is associated with Harvard I wanted to see if their NR research is being confused with David Sinclair's work by our current venders. See || Harvard ||

 

For the most part I'd say no, however I do see some non-study articles mentioning both NR and Harvard and if you poke deeper into the links there is some vague vender associations. One term has bothered me which I think is misleading "fountain of youth" But I don't think David Sinclair ever mentioned it in describing Nicotinamide Riboside or promoted it as such. So to find an association to these claims I ran || David Sinclair Harvard with fountain of youth. || to see what vender turned up. I found one who was almost exclusive in these claims but I refrain from mentioning them because I've challenged them on their claims before. So the association of "fountain of youth," "David Sinclair," AND "Harvard" with Nicotinamide Riboside is the domain of one vender in particular. Sure wish my brand of NR did all that. This is the sort of stuff that warps the public perception and the expectation of the NR molecule. Its over the top marketing period. "Niagen Origins Niagen is a nutritional supplement that was discovered as recently as late 2013 by Dr. David Sinclair of Harvard Medical School whilst performing clinical research on mice." This is so far from the truth it makes me laugh and it gets reproduced as a cut and past misnomer time after time. What isn't true confuses the public and this is at the core of the SENS NR review and in the end ChromaDex isn't policing there own venders by letting this LIE continue. 

 

There is the possibility that Sinclair is allowing the the use of his name in the NR advertising in which case this doesn't bother him but a false hood is still growing.

 

I just hate when reviewers examine and comment on a field of research with only a cursory glance into what first appeared in their google browser. In this case an advertiser who has jumbled up the facts and has portrayed it origins incorrectly. From his review its obvious Michael Rae either didn't bother to find more research pointing to Nicotinamide Riboside than David Sinclair's work on NMN, Niagen vender claims or he intentionally omitted a plethora of NR research to reach his conclusion. Now I don't believe he omitted anything intentionally but I'd have to grade his review on the NR topic as an F for his research effort. I'm speculating he found the aforementioned vender claims and immediately called foul without checking further.  I'm kind of disappointed to hear he is a research assistant at the SENS Foundation because its obvious he isn't an unbiased researcher and was quickly opinionated and stopped reading.

 

This is why I have such a strong opinion about not reading venders marketing claims. Sure they condense a lot of material and you get it fast but they do it in a loose fashion. Who are you going to believe the guy with a Bachelor of Arts in Marketing or someone from our esteemed list above?

 

I just did an open Nicotinamide Riboside search and could see your standard BS vender claims but there was one bonafide NIH research paper that appeared on page one. I repeated the search with one extra word to exclude the venders "nicotinamide riboside scholarly" and that cleaned up the whole picture.

 

Some one should point him here. LOL

http://www.longecity...ws-and-updates/

Edited by Bryan_S, 28 November 2015 - 05:16 AM.