32 replies to this topic

[MikeDC]

All our comparisons of NR and NMN assumed that they both have perfect bioavailability and intact NR and NMN can enter blood stream. In reality, the majority of NR and NMN are hydrolized into NAM before entering liver. So oral NR and NMN should have similar results with NMN less efficient due to higher molecular weight. The advantages of NR over NMN increases as bioavailability increases because a majority of NMN needs to covert to NR first before entering cells. Sublingual NR should be better than NMN if it actually works. We have not seen any study of sublingual use of NR or NMN.

I think this is a good summary of the state of art of NR and NMN. Make your own decisions. No need to argue anymore. There is more to NR and NMN than we currently understand. The science can’t explain why so many people feel rejuvenation effects from NR while not from NAM or Niacin. I am still waiting to see how many NMN users get younger skin and grey hair turning black.

[able]

All our comparisons of NR and NMN assumed that they both have perfect bioavailability and intact NR and NMN can enter blood stream. In reality, the majority of NR and NMN are hydrolized into NAM before entering liver. So oral NR and NMN should have similar results with NMN less efficient due to higher molecular weight. The advantages of NR over NMN increases as bioavailability increases because a majority of NMN needs to covert to NR first before entering cells. Sublingual NR should be better than NMN if it actually works. We have not seen any study of sublingual use of NR or NMN.

 

 

The image here, from the study Stefan linked shows the actual results from the only study I know that compared NMN and NR directly in a disease model.

 

Both seemed to work well.  

 

NMN shows a little higher increase in NAD+ and improved performance.  As you noted, they use molar equivalents, and after adjusting for the higher weight of NMN, they are probably about equal in efficacy, mg to mg. 

 

This is actually results.  If NR had an advantage because NMN converts to NR to enter cells, it doesn't show up here.  They performed nearly identically, as Stefan pointed out.

 

Edited by able, 20 February 2019 - 06:30 PM.

[MikeDC]

The image here, from the study Stefan linked shows the actual results from the only study I know that compared NMN and NR directly in a disease model.

Both seemed to work well.

NMN shows a little higher increase in NAD+ and improved performance. As you noted, they use molar equivalents, and after adjusting for the higher weight of NMN, they are probably about equal in efficacy, mg to mg.

This is actually results. If NR had an advantage because NMN converts to NR to enter cells, it doesn't show up here. They performed nearly identically, as Stefan pointed out.

NMN is 31% heavier than NR. The results based on equal molar quantity shows NMN is less than 10% better. Adjusting for weight, NR is over 20% better.

As I stated NR and NMN works similarly in oral supplementation because over 95% of them are hydrolysed into NAM. The cells don’t care where the NAM comes from. So NR and NMN are mostly equal on molar basis and on the weight basis, NR is over 20% better than NMN.