79 replies to this topic

[Gingerbread Man]

 

 

I could not possibly care less about its insulin or fatty liver properties. Insulin problems are like super easy to take care of (barring serious genetic disorders or what have you) 

 

Intermittent fasting , healthy diet, limit sugar, excersice. Boom. Problems solved. 

 

 

 

I'm glad you don't care or need to care about these problems. They are terrible problems to deal with for those that have these issues. However your "problems solved" math equation is a great theoretical ideal but far from reality in most affected peoples lives. Enjoy your health.

[ceridwen]

NAFLD?

[Gingerbread Man]

NAFLD?

 

Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease.

[Phoebus]

I'm glad you don't care or need to care about these problems. They are terrible problems to deal with for those that have these issues. However your "problems solved" math equation is a great theoretical ideal but far from reality in most affected peoples lives. Enjoy your health.

 

 

the point is that this specific drug is not going to solve or address these issue. So lets test it in other areas where it shows much greater promise. 

[Gingerbread Man]

the point is that this specific drug is not going to solve or address these issue. So lets test it in other areas where it shows much greater promise. 

 

NR is not a drug it's a vitamin. We know it does in fact help with fatty liver based on this study, this study was important. This study was first posted December 1, 2014. I hadn't even heard of NR back then. 

 

We know more now about NR, so we each would like different things for it to be tested for, but we have to wait for the process. There are other clinical trials planned.

[stefan_001]

From another board:

 

Fellow TruNiagen people:
I'm relaying a direct quote from Dr. Brenner (today, July 13, 2018) about the latest published study from Aarhus University Hospital. I may have to put it in pieces on here, if YF deletes it for being too long. Please DO NOT ask me to defend this. Dr. Brenner is the scientist, not me. Thanks, Dr. Brenner, for the clarity.
“The study was hypothesis-generating.....
Differences between human and mouse obesity are major.
Person gets fat over decades,
A mouse over weeks.
Trying to reverse any parameter in 12 weeks in humans is daunting.
Essentially we found that the fat content of the liver is the most responsive parameter to high dose NR.
In hindsight that should have been the first parameter for randomization and primary endpoint
More work needed....
The reason it can’t be in the abstract of the paper is technical:
Statistical significance is defined as P < 0.05 against the placebo control.
We got to P = 0.13.
How, you might wonder, can you say this isn’t significant when the average guy loses 2% of his liver fat in 12 weeks of NR versus 0.2% on placebo? Clearly medically significant in terms of the “effect size” (i.e. 10-fold effect). But does not meet the standard for statistical significance so it can’t be responsibly touted in the abstract.
If you look carefully at the data, the guys were randomized for insulin sensitivity as the primary endpoint. By unfortunate chance, the guys getting NR started off with lower liver fat than those on placebo.
There is every indication that a study setting out to clear fatty liver with high dose NR for 26 weeks would succeed.”

[bluemoon]

The reason it can’t be in the abstract of the paper is technical:
Statistical significance is defined as P < 0.05 against the placebo control.
We got to P = 0.13.
How, you might wonder, can you say this isn’t significant when the average guy loses 2% of his liver fat in 12 weeks of NR versus 0.2% on placebo? Clearly medically significant in terms of the “effect size” (i.e. 10-fold effect). But does not meet the standard for statistical significance so it can’t be responsibly touted in the abstract.
If you look carefully at the data, the guys were randomized for insulin sensitivity as the primary endpoint. By unfortunate chance, the guys getting NR started off with lower liver fat than those on placebo.
There is every indication that a study setting out to clear fatty liver with high dose NR for 26 weeks would succeed.”

 

 

I just saw this on the Yahoo board and was going to comment. First, that P =0.13 could have been in the abstract if simply stated. I'm in the middle of a good book by two economists called "The Cult of Significance" that argues not nearly as much weight should be placed on statistical significance as effect size and Brenner seems to understand this but probably needs to go by the bad 0.5 convention to get published.

 

The person who wrote the above misstated the "average guy loses 2% of his liver fat part" where it should be 18% of his liver fat. The 2% was in absolute terms.

 

Brenner's last statement is incredible: (completely) clear out fatty liver? We really need to know what 250 mg to 500 mg of NR does for fatty liver. Wouldn't 2000 mg of NR a day start with boosting NAD+ a lot, maybe over 100%, but then eventually come down to where 500 mg reduces to, around 55% or maybe 40% as with 250 mg?  

[stefan_001]

 

 

I just saw this on the Yahoo board and was going to comment. First, that P =0.13 could have been in the abstract if simply stated. I'm in the middle of a good book by two economists called "The Cult of Significance" that argues not nearly as much weight should be placed on statistical significance as effect size and Brenner seems to understand this but probably needs to go by the bad 0.5 convention to get published.

 

The person who wrote the above misstated the "average guy loses 2% of his liver fat part" where it should be 18% of his liver fat. The 2% was in absolute terms.

 

Brenner's last statement is incredible: (completely) clear out fatty liver? We really need to know what 250 mg to 500 mg of NR does for fatty liver. Wouldn't 2000 mg of NR a day start with boosting NAD+ a lot, maybe over 100%, but then eventually come down to where 500 mg reduces to, around 55% or maybe 40% as with 250 mg?  

 

 

This ties a bit into the oral versus sublingual debate. This study indicates that we need to do both.

[MikeDC]

From Brenner.
The study was hypothesis-generating.....
Differences between human and mouse obesity are major.
Person gets fat over decades,
A mouse over weeks.
Trying to reverse any parameter in 12 weeks in humans is daunting.
Essentially we found that the fat content of the liver is the most responsive parameter to high dose NR.
In hindsight that should have been the first parameter for randomization and primary endpoint
More work needed....
The reason it can’t be in the abstract of the paper is technical:
Statistical significance is defined as P < 0.05 against the placebo control.
We got to P = 0.13.
How, you might wonder, can you say this isn’t significant when the average guy loses 2% of his liver fat in 12 weeks of NR versus 0.2% on placebo? Clearly medically significant in terms of the “effect size” (i.e. 10-fold effect). But does not meet the standard for statistical significance so it can’t be responsibly touted in the abstract.
If you look carefully at the data, the guys were randomized for insulin sensitivity as the primary endpoint. By unfortunate chance, the guys getting NR started off with lower liver fat than those on placebo.
There is every indication that a study setting out to clear fatty liver with high dose NR for 26 weeks would succeed.”

[MikeDC]

40% of people with 15% or more fatty liver got sizable reduction in fat content in the liver by 50%.
This study also confirmed that different people responds to NR differently.

[Gingerbread Man]

From Brenner.
The study was hypothesis-generating.....
Differences between human and mouse obesity are major.
Person gets fat over decades,
A mouse over weeks.
Trying to reverse any parameter in 12 weeks in humans is daunting.
Essentially we found that the fat content of the liver is the most responsive parameter to high dose NR.
In hindsight that should have been the first parameter for randomization and primary endpoint
More work needed....
 

 

It took longer than 12 weeks for me to see a major change in my NAFLD but I was also taking significantly lower doses (from 75 -375) over a longer period of time. After 18 months of mixed dosages (oral only) my numbers did get better and my doctor was pleased with how the fatty liver was responding to the meds he thought I was taking (I was taking Niagen instead).

[aribadabar]

 An HbA1c, % of 5.6 is normal. I think if those values had been listed in the results as unchanged it would be more accurate than "not improved"

 

They are good only if you are pre-diabetic.

5.5 should be treated as the last stop of the healthy scale.

[bluemoon]

40% of people with 15% or more fatty liver got sizable reduction in fat content in the liver by 50%.
This study also confirmed that different people responds to NR differently.

 

Where did you read this?

[Gingerbread Man]

They are good only if you are pre-diabetic.

5.5 should be treated as the last stop of the healthy scale.

 

100% wrong.

 

Are you using a canadian exchange rate or something?

 

5.7% is considered the top of normal and the bottom of prediabetic.

[MikeDC]

Where did you read this?

I summarized the data in figure 4D

100% wrong.

Are you using a canadian exchange rate or something?

5.7% is considered the top of normal and the bottom of prediabetic.

Confirmed. I was 5.7 and dropped to 5.4 after taking NR.

[aribadabar]

100% wrong.

 

Are you using a canadian exchange rate or something?

 

5.7% is considered the top of normal and the bottom of prediabetic.

 

You are welcome to split hairs if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

 

I'd rather aim for a lower HbA1C - I am usually at 5.0-5.2 and shooting for sub 5 as the glucose metabolism invariably deteriorates with age and I'd rather retard or, if possible, partially reverse this process.

Staying complacent at 5.5 will bring one into pre-diabetic territory before one realizes it's too late to reverse course. It is,in my book, an alarm that one should take very seriously but you are welcome to think otherwise.

 

As to this NR study - if NR failed to show any MAJOR amelioration in obese people where the "room" for improvement is significant, I would rather discontinue purchasing an expensive sugar pill than cling on it for some minor results that may very well be placebo.

Edited by aribadabar, 14 July 2018 - 07:24 PM.

[Gingerbread Man]

100% wrong.

 

Are you using a canadian exchange rate or something?

 

5.7% is considered the top of normal and the bottom of prediabetic.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/...ing-tested.html

 

https://www.mayoclin...ut/pac-20384643

 

https://diatribe.org...n-it-misleading

[Gingerbread Man]

You are welcome to split hairs if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

 

I'd rather aim for a lower HbA1C - I am usually at 5.0-5.2 and shooting for sub 5 as the glucose metabolism invariably deteriorates with age and I'd rather retard or, if possible, partially reverse this process.

Staying complacent at 5.5 will bring one into pre-diabetic territory before one realizes it's too late to reverse course. It is,in my book, an alarm that one should take very seriously but you are welcome to think otherwise.

 

As to this NR study - if NR failed to show any MAJOR amelioration in obese people where the "room" for improvement is significant, I would rather discontinue purchasing an expensive sugar pill than cling on it for some minor results that may very well be placebo.

 

There is no splitting of hairs.

 

When I was diagnosed with diabetes over 18 years ago the normal % back then was 5.9%.

 

https://www.medicine...ition_and_facts

 

Over the years they have pushed that number down to 5.7%. 5.0-5.2 is terrific and I commend you, but you deciding 5.5 as being the cutoff/alarm is not the standard to which the medical community uses. I posted references for what it is now and here what it was just a few years ago.

 

The room is not "significant" at 5.6% on avg. Again you would be looking at lowering blood glucose in a normal and healthy person. I would not want that from a vitamin. It should try to give your body what it needs to have your body do what it is supposed to do. Providing fuel for cells etc.... Just because people are obese doesn't mean their blood glucose has room for improvement. Sugar pill?? Are just trying to be antagonistic? If you think the effects on the liver shown in that study are minor results that may be placebo you either didn't read it or are just grinding out an agenda.

 

The fact that it was proven to be safe at high dosages while improving fatty liver is outstanding. The fact that it didn't negatively affect the other markers that were in the normal/healthy range is great news!

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Unfortunately the researchers didn't include common liver-function-parameter tests such as AST, ALT, ALP, albumin, and bilirubin for their subjects, in spite of the fact that in the article's introduction mention is made that:

 

"NR improves glycemic control and provides resistance to weight gain, hepatic steatosis, and hypercholesterolemia in mouse models of prediabetes and diabetes (9, 35). Moreover, NR effectively reduces ectopic lipid deposition in the liver in mouse models of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (8, 10)"

 

It's clear in the researcher's cited references that NR appears to have an effect on the livers of tested mice. And, yet, they apparently didn't find a need to test for any potentially adverse affects on the livers of their test subjects that might be attributable to NR.

 

It's unknown from the information provided in the study whether there were any adverse effects on the liver, as might be indicated by abnormal liver-function test values. So, we are left wondering whether, in addition to reducing fat in the liver, the NR might also be adversely affecting it.

 

 

[aribadabar]

There is no splitting of hairs.

 

When I was diagnosed with diabetes over 18 years ago the normal % back then was 5.9%.

 

https://www.medicine...ition_and_facts

 

Over the years they have pushed that number down to 5.7%. 5.0-5.2 is terrific and I commend you, but you deciding 5.5 as being the cutoff/alarm is not the standard to which the medical community uses. I posted references for what it is now and here what it was just a few years ago.

 

The room is not "significant" at 5.6% on avg. Again you would be looking at lowering blood glucose in a normal and healthy person. I would not want that from a vitamin. It should try to give your body what it needs to have your body do what it is supposed to do. Providing fuel for cells etc.... Just because people are obese doesn't mean their blood glucose has room for improvement. Sugar pill?? Are just trying to be antagonistic? If you think the effects on the liver shown in that study are minor results that may be placebo you either didn't read it or are just grinding out an agenda.

 

The fact that it was proven to be safe at high dosages while improving fatty liver is outstanding. The fact that it didn't negatively affect the other markers that were in the normal/healthy range is great news!

 

Medical community looks at the whole set of people (very healthy (sub 5), relatively healthy 5.0-5.7, pre-diabetic 5.7-6 and diabetic (6+) ) when setting "normal" ranges.

My goal, and I suppose that of most of the people here on Longecity, is to remain healthy for as long as possible so I focus on the first 2 subsets above when setting my range which is what I have been practicing. This skews the upper limit slightly downward compared to that of the general population.

 

The room is, in fact, significant - dropping into 5.2-5.4 from 5.7-5.9 would be meaningful - anything else is marginal for people looking to be healthy (not just slightly less sick).

You are contradicting yourself - on one hand, you say that you would not expect much from a VITAMIN then you are "happy" that it is safe at somewhat high doses (well, it is a vitamin, after all).

And yes, it is expensive for a vitamin - there is no question about that. If you disagree, show me another vitamin that costs that much per month for the same RDA %.

 

So I guess, my "agenda" is to say that NR is not worth its current cost for the reported benefits so far. IF that changes in the future for the better - more studies showing significant improvements in other important markers OR the cost goes way down - I will, of course, change my position.

 

The more important question regarding NAFLD impact - 1) could this have been due to eating healthier when one is a study participant (being more health-conscious) and, on the monetary side, and 2) can the same results be achieved via more affordable proven means?

 

I think we should use this study to look from more angles and for more avenues.

(Btw, in case you are wondering, I didn't rate your posts above.)

Edited by aribadabar, 14 July 2018 - 08:17 PM.

[Hebbeh]

https://www.webmd.co...-test-hba1c#1-4

 

 

 

What's a Normal Hemoglobin A1c Test?

For people without diabetes, the normal range for the hemoglobin A1c level is between 4% and 5.6%. Hemoglobin A1c levels between 5.7% and 6.4% mean you have a higher chance of getting diabetes. Levels of 6.5% or higher mean you have diabetes.

 

 

 

[Hebbeh]

I'm 61 and had blood work done 18 days ago (6/26/18) and tested HbA1C of 4.9%

Edited by Hebbeh, 14 July 2018 - 08:28 PM.

[Gingerbread Man]

Medical community looks at the whole set of people (very healthy (sub 5), relatively healthy 5.0-5.7, pre-diabetic 5.7-6 and diabetic (6+) ) when setting "normal" ranges.

My goal, and I suppose that of most of the people here on Longecity, is to remain healthy for as long as possible so I focus on the first 2 subsets above when setting my range which is what I have been practicing. This skews the upper limit slightly downward compared to that of the general population.

 

The room is, in fact, significant - dropping into 5.2-5.4 from 5.7-5.9 would be meaningful - anything else is marginal for people looking to be healthy (not just slightly less sick).

You are contradicting yourself - on one hand, you say that you would not expect much from a VITAMIN then you are "happy" that it is safe at somewhat high doses (well, it is a vitamin, after all).

And yes, it is expensive for a vitamin - there is no question about that. If you disagree, show me another vitamin that costs that much per month for the same RDA %.

 

So I guess, my "agenda" is to say that NR is not worth its current cost for the reported benefits so far. IF that changes in the future for the better - more studies showing significant improvements in other important markers OR the cost goes way down - I will, of course, change my position.

 

The more important question regarding NAFLD impact - 1) could this have been due to eating healthier when one is a study participant (being more health-conscious) and, on the monetary side, and 2) can the same results be achieved via more affordable proven means?

 

I think we should use this study to look from more angles and for more avenues.

(Btw, in case you are wondering, I didn't rate your posts above.)

 

The clinical trial had nothing to do with expense. The study was done to test NR against a certain subset. The test was reported in December of 2014! This clinical trial and it's results have been a long time coming. Your goals have nothing to do with what is healthy, diabetic, prediabetic, very healthy, very very healthy etc....

 

Please stop saying the room to move is significant. Every single person is different, every single person has a baseline that is healthy for them. That goes for every single marker that is measured, hence why you have a range that is considered normal. I get that you aren't impressed. I am ok with that, but as someone who has been very interested in the results from this particular test all I can tell you is I am very excited about the results. As I have mentioned, long time diabetic and someone who has struggled with NAFLD, this test confirms my own anecdotal results from taking NR. It shows at the small doses I take of NR that it is safe and it has been worth every penny to me.

 

I agree we should always look at different angles and avenues, always. But remember, this was started in 2014! You have to start somewhere. NR hasn't been available as a supplement much longer if at all than that. You didn't have MNM for example to compare it to back then, you can't compare all the studies, trails and results from other products that have been available for years/decades longer. We have become accustomed to instant gratification, unfortunately these things take time.

 

(It's ok if you did, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. ) 

 

Being a diabetic I am familiar with what is considered healthy more than most people, so I felt it necessary to comment on that.

[Gingerbread Man]

 

https://www.webmd.co...-test-hba1c#1-4

 

 

 

 

Hebbeh you quoted this:

 

Quote

What's a Normal Hemoglobin A1c Test?

For people without diabetes, the normal range for the hemoglobin A1c level is between 4% and 5.6%. Hemoglobin A1c levels between 5.7% and 6.4% mean you have a higher chance of getting diabetes. Levels of 6.5% or higher mean you have diabetes.

 

 

Realistically if you look at what you quoted there is no description for someone with a % between 5.6% and 5.7%. Hence why other places like the CDC, Mayo Clinic etc... Use 5.7% as the upper normal limit (where they determine you are at a higher chance of diabetes). Notice in table 3 of the study the placebo group had a 5.7% and the NR group have a 5.6% to start and finish with. The lower % group was given the NR, again I wouldn't have expected it to change.

[pamojja]

Confirmed. I was 5.7 and dropped to 5.4 after taking NR.

 

Don't give much meaning to HbA1c in general, and such a meaningless fluctuation in particular. HbA1c can be altered by many co-conditions and even cheapest Vitamin C!

 

 

 Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 23-August-2002, Vol 115 No 1160

Glycohaemoglobin and ascorbic acid

Copplestone et al1 (http://www.nzma.org....al/115-1157/25/) identified misleading glycohaemoglobin (GHb) results due to a haemoglobin variant (Hb D Punjab) and listed a number of other possible causes for such false results (ie, haemolytic anaemia, uraemia, lead poisoning, alcoholism, high-dose salicylates and hereditary persistence of foetal haemoglobin).

We have observed a significant "false" lowering of GHb in animals and humans supplementing ascorbic acid (AA) at multigram levels. Mice receiving ~7.5 mg/d (equivalent to > 10 g/day in a 70 kg human) exhibited no decrease in plasma glucose, but a 23% reduction in GHb.2 In humans, supplementation of AA for several months did not lower fasting plasma glucose.3,4 We studied 139 consecutive consenting non-diabetic patients in an oncology clinic. The patients had been encouraged as part of their treatment to supplement AA. Self-reported daily intake varied from 0 to 20 g/day. The plasma AA levels ranged from 11.4 to 517 µmol/L and correlated well with the reported intake. Regression analysis of their GHb and plasma AA values showed a statistically significant inverse association (eg, each 30 µmol/L increase in plasma AA concentration resulted in a decrease of 0.1 in GHb).

A 1 g oral dose of AA can raise plasma AA to 130 µmol/L within an hour and such doses at intervals of about two hours throughout the day can maintain ~230 µmol AA/L.5 Similar levels could also be achieved by use of sustained-release AA tablets. This AA concentration would induce an approximate 0.7 depression in GHb. The GHb assay used in our study, affinity chromatography, is not affected by the presence of AA.3 Thus, unlike the case with Hb D Punjab, our results were not caused by analytical method artifact. More likely, the decreased GHb associated with AA supplementation appears related to an in vivo inhibition of glycation by the elevated plasma AA levels, and not a decrease in average plasma glucose.3 If this is true, the effect has implications not only for interpretation of GHb but also for human ageing, in which glycation of proteins plays a prominent role in age-related degenerative changes.

A misleading GHb lowering of the magnitude we observed can be clinically significant. Current recommendations for diabetics suggest that GHb be maintained at 7, a level that is associated with acceptable control and decreased risk of complications; when GHb exceeds 8, re-evaluation of treatment is necessary.6 Moreover, relatively small increases in average blood sugar (ie, GHb) can accompany adverse reproductive effects. A difference in mean maternal GHb of 0.8 was found for women giving birth to infants without or with congenital malformations.7 In either of these circumstances, an underestimation of GHb could obscure the need for more aggressive intervention.

Vitamin usage is common in New Zealand and after multivitamins, AA is the most often consumed supplement.8 Moreover, diabetics are encouraged to supplement antioxidants, including AA. Thus, it seems prudent for primary care health providers to inquire regarding the AA intake of patients, especially diabetics, when using GHb for diagnosis or treatment monitoring.

Cheryl A Krone
Senior Research Scientist
John TA Ely
Director
Applied Research Institute
PO Box 1925
Palmerston North

References:

• Copplestone S, Mackay R, Brennan S. Normal glycated haemoglobin in a patient with poorly controlled diabetes mellitus and haemoglobin D Punjab: implications for assessment of control. NZ Med J 2002;115(1157). URL: http://www.nzma.org....al/115-1157/25/
• Krone CA, Ely JTA. Vitamin C and glycohemoglobin revisited. Clin Chem 2001;47(1):148.
• Davie SJ, Gould BJ, Yudkin JS. Effect of vitamin C on glycosylation of proteins. Diabetes 1992;41(2):167–73.
• Paolisso G, Balbi V, Bolpe C, et al. Metabolic benefits deriving from chronic vitamin C supplementation in aged non-insulin dependent diabetics. J Am Coll Nutr 1995; 14(4):387–392.
• Lewin S. Vitamin C: Its Molecular Biology and Medical Potential. New York: Academic Press; 1976.
• Kenealey T, Braatvedt G, Scragg R. Screening for type 2 diabetes in non-pregnant adults in New Zealand: practice recommendations. NZ Med J 2002;115(1152):194–6.
• Rosenn B, Miodovnik M, Dignan PS, et al. Minor congenital malformation in infants of insulin-dependent diabetic women: association with poor glycemic control. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:745–9.
• Allen T, Thomson WM, Emmerton LM, Poulton R. Nutritional supplement use among 26-year-olds. N Z Med J 2000;113(1113):274–7.

 

For example, mine has been in average 5.1% for the last 10 years (from 4.4 to 6.2; 17 times tested), while when calculated against my mean blood glucose it should have been 5.7. I do take high dose vitamin C. A 0.3% fluctuation from one HbA1c to the next means nothing.

 

These been my results the last 10 years:

 

5.1%

4.7%

4.8%

4.4%

4.8%

5.0%

4.8%

5.4%

5.1%

5.0%

5.0%

6.2%

5.2%

5.0%

4.9%

5.2%

 

Full circle. Nevertheless, with at times 122 mg/dl fasting glucose and 140 postprandial, definitely prediabetic.

Edited by pamojja, 14 July 2018 - 09:12 PM.

[Hebbeh]

Hebbeh you quoted this:

 

Quote

 

Realistically if you look at what you quoted there is no description for someone with a % between 5.6% and 5.7%. Hence why other places like the CDC, Mayo Clinic etc... Use 5.7% as the upper normal limit (where they determine you are at a higher chance of diabetes). Notice in table 3 of the study the placebo group had a 5.7% and the NR group have a 5.6% to start and finish with. The lower % group was given the NR, again I wouldn't have expected it to change.

 

5.6 is nothing to write home about and I would expect that most here both strive for and achieve much better results than 5.6% through diet, exercise, and lifestyle as it should be.  You are emotionally splitting hairs attempting to justify a magic pill which will never achieve the results of proper lifestyle.  Some here promoting NR as a magic cure all to substitute for proper lifestyle through diet and exercise is the real disservice as lifestyle should be the first and foremost effort.  Anything beyond proper healthy lifestyle is simple a little frosting on the cake and that will never change.  We all should focus on living a healthy lifestyle throughout our life and not expect a fancy vitamin tablet to substitute at the 11th hour for not having done the basics.  As has been already suggested, NR will never improve on striving for a healthy lifestyle and that should be the focus.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: my post #42. "Similarly, no significant change in the liver marker ALT was recorded.". However, the values of other parameters I mentioned weren't reported.  It'd be interesting to see the actual values even if considered "insignificant".

 

"Participants had direct access to a physician throughout the study, and were seen at a midway safety checkup after 6 wk, when a blood sample was drawn to monitor for adverse events. The blood sample included creatinine, sodium, potassium, urea nitrogen, albumin, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, hemoglobin, white blood cell count, and platelets. Oral information about adverse events was recorded after 6 wk and at the end of the trial."

 

"No serious adverse events due to NR supplementation were observed and safety blood tests were normal.". What constitutes "serious".

 

"There were reports of minor adverse reactions from 4 participants in the NR group and from 2 participants in the placebo group. Adverse reactions in the NR group included pruritus, excessive sweating, bloating, and transient changes in stool, and in the placebo group acid reflux and periodic loose stools. The severity was mild in every case. Blood samples drawn to check for adverse events after 6 wk revealed no abnormalities in the NR group. Three participants from the placebo group displayed mild thrombocytosis (platelet count: <700 × 109/L)."

 

"The single dose safety data only went up to 1000 mg/d (16). The safety of ingestion of NR at 2000 mg/d for a 12-wk period was supported in this study by the lack of clinically relevant findings in the blood biochemistry and hematology parameters as well as a lack of difference in incidence, nature, and severity of test article adverse events as well as no reported serious adverse events. Cutaneous flushing, a well-known side effect of NA, present already at a single dose of 500 mg (48), was not reported in relation to NR supplementation in this study."

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 14 July 2018 - 09:30 PM.

[Gingerbread Man]

5.6 is nothing to write home about and I would expect that most here both strive for and achieve much better results than 5.6% through diet, exercise, and lifestyle as it should be.  You are emotionally splitting hairs attempting to justify a magic pill which will never achieve the results of proper lifestyle.  Some here promoting NR as a magic cure all to substitute for proper lifestyle through diet and exercise is the real disservice as lifestyle should be the first and foremost effort.  Anything beyond proper healthy lifestyle is simple a little frosting on the cake and that will never change.  We all should focus on living a healthy lifestyle throughout our life and not expect a fancy vitamin tablet to substitute at the 11th hour for not having done the basics.  As has been already suggested, NR will never improve on striving for a healthy lifestyle and that should be the focus.

 

You are going way off topic here. This is about the clinical trial that was completed. It's not the everyone should be healthy without using magic pills thread. I think you are confusing this thread with the personal experience thread.

 

5.6% is what they started with (NR group) and what they finished with. Unchanged. Fatty liver change was excellent! Safe at large doses at least for 12 weeks, excellent! That is what this trial was testing, not what peoples health goals are or we all need to eat better and exercise more.

 

Talk about the clinical trial.

[Hebbeh]

You are going way off topic here. This is about the clinical trial that was completed. It's not the everyone should be healthy without using magic pills thread. I think you are confusing this thread with the personal experience thread.

 

5.6% is what they started with (NR group) and what they finished with. Unchanged. Fatty liver change was excellent! Safe at large doses at least for 12 weeks, excellent! That is what this trial was testing, not what peoples health goals are or we all need to eat better and exercise more.

 

Talk about the clinical trial.

 

If you go back and re-read your own posts, you will realize I'm not the one who went off topic and began emotionally posting on personal experiences.  As the study suggested and I posted, NR was unable to improve on staying healthy in the first place.  Now I would suggest you follow your own advice and keep the discussion to what the trial found.

[Gingerbread Man]

I'm 61 and had blood work done 18 days ago (6/26/18) and tested HbA1C of 4.9%

 

You posted personal information in this thread as well.

 

Glad you can read my emotions over my typed word (other then the smiley emoji's I posted).

 

My information was posted either to answer a question or to convey a correlation between my own anecdotal experiences with NR and the clinical trials results.

 

Your posting of this "NR was unable to improve on staying healthy in the first place." has nothing to do with what the trial was looking at and in my opinion, not correct.

 

Have a great day.