54 replies to this topic

[OP2040]

https://www.newswise...ular-senescence

 

This kind of goes along with what I was saying in another thread.  Any regenerative medicine will be found to be correlated with cancer eventually, and everyone here will freak out and discount it as a therapeutic.  The thing is, regeneration and cancer are not easily distinguishable in the first place, except perhaps for metastases.  The only way  to defeat cancer is by restoring the immune system, not by attacking and and all of the bodies regenerative pathways. 

 

So we can add NAD+ to the list.  Of course, we should have known that since oncologists love to inhibit DNA repair so they can give someone .0007 additional months of miserable life extension.

[OP2040]

Of course the silver lining here is that senolytics helps overcome this conundrum by eliminating the degenerative micro-environment that promotes both degeneration and cancer.  It helps a lot that it is one of the very first interventions to become widespread and available.

[Mind]

I have also mentioned this from a layman's view of "almost anything that promotes regular cell growth will also tend promote cancer cell growth".

[ryukenden]

Thank you and we will have to be more careful with Nicotinamide riboside and mononucleoside.

I am currently taking either of them 5 days every week. Should we reduce the frequency or stop taking them altogether until we become clearer about adverse affects?

I could somehow recall someone developing cancer while taking Nicotinamide riboside.

Edited by ryukenden, 18 February 2019 - 09:26 PM.

[Brian Valerie]

Thanks for posting the study, OP2040.  I'd like to make the point that all of our supplements should be evaluated on a risk versus reward basis, and that the evidence from NAD+ animal research is much more positive than negative.  While young folks have plenty of time to wait for definitive NAD+ human trials, those of us at middle age or beyond may be wiser to adopt a modest dose, episodic cycling protocol such as ryukenden's five days per week, or my own six to eight days on, three days off protocol (which is partly based on the unpublished information that I received in a telephone call with NMN producer AliveByNature that NAD+ levels may remain elevated for up to 72 hours after the last dosing).

[OP2040]

This is something everyone has to decide for themselves.  As a starting rule of thumb, just look at your family.  If people in your family history mostly died of cancer or the various degenerative diseases.  For me, that means I don't worry about cancer as much because I can only think of one family member who had cancer. 

 

I also think cancer will be cured before the various degenerative diseases, because it is caused by a lack of immune function.  We are engineering that as we speak, and iyt's always easier to destroy something than to build or rebuild something. 

 

For now, I am taking the best supp I can find for each hallmark of aging, and all of them are considered regenerative to some extent and most of them have been "at the scene" of cancer.  I mitigate any potential cancer risk by enhancing immunity with periodic melatonin and ahcc.  The melatonin to support whatever thymus I have left.  The ahcc is well studied and enhances NK cell activity.  The AHCC also helps with microbial load.  We don't talk about it much here, but the evidence for it being a huge factor in both cancer and degenerative diseases is mounting.  And in that case too, it is the loss of immune function that allows the microbial load to start wreaking havoc as we age. 

 

Knowledge is power.  We live in very fast moving times, and these are all problems that have a good chance of being solved in our lifetimes. 

[MikeDC]

I could not read the full paper. I doubt there is any evidence that external NAD+ increases cancer probability. We already know for normal cells, increased NAD+ reduces cancer probability. Even if senescent cells secrete more inflammatory molecules, it may be adequately compensated by the positive effects on normal cells. The author is trying to make headlines without adequate evidence. Maybe he is working for big pharma to kill the new NAD+ industry that will take away trillions of profits from big pharma.

[ryukenden]

I digged into the forum and can find the user who developed cancer while taking NR. We have to be careful, IMO. You will find his post which is down the page from the following link. He cited a link to highlight pros and cons of NAD+

https://www.longecit...getting-cancer/

Edited by ryukenden, 20 February 2019 - 12:18 AM.

[MikeDC]

I digged into the forum and can find the user who developed cancer while taking NR. We have to be careful, IMO. You will find his post which is down the page from the following link. He cited a link to highlight pros and cons of NAD+

https://www.longecit...getting-cancer/

I doubt that post is real. Even if it is real, the cancer was already present when he started taking Niagen because it will need more than a few months to initiate cancer and growth it big enough to be detected.

[ryukenden]

I doubt that post is real. Even if it is real, the cancer was already present when he started taking Niagen because it will need more than a few months to initiate cancer and growth it big enough to be detected.

It depends upon type of cancer and some can grow very rapidly and fatal within weeks. May be that he has cancer when he started taking NR and it did not possibly help the situation.

We all do have cancerous cells in our bodies and they got destroyed by our defence system.

Edited by ryukenden, 20 February 2019 - 01:23 AM.

[MikeDC]

It depends upon type of cancer and some can grow very rapidly and fatal within weeks. May be that he has cancer when he started taking NR and it did not possibly help the situation.

We all do have cancerous cells in our bodies and they got destroyed by our defence system.

If NR helped him to get cancer, we should have thousands of people complaining already. The probability of getting cancer naturally is very high for old people. Even if NR is neutral against cancer statistically we should have heard hundreds of cases of cancer by now.

[OP2040]

I think some folks are missing the point of the thread.  NAD+ does not cause cancer.  Cancer uses any and all regenerative pathways in order to spread.  Does that mean we should deplete our stem cells, inhibit dna repair, and promote cellular senescence?  I would not be in the least surprised if they found that vigorous exercise slightly increases your risk of cancer, but lowers your risk of other types of diseases.

 

Unfortunately, we have to live with this trade-off  until we have more complete control over all bodily processes, which will happen some day.  In the meantime, eschewing every new regenerative technology that comes out just ensures you will definitely suffer and die of age-related disease and cancer right on schedule. 

 

Taking a more scientific approach, I know of no intervention studies that show increased cancer rates for any of these substances.  Most of the studies show a scenario where cancer is already well-established and has access and uses these pathways.  As someone in the thread already noted, of course it does!  Cancer metastases is nothing more than unregulated growth.  If it didn't use the typical growth pathways to some extent, then that would be the shocking find.

[MikeDC]

For breast cancer at least increasing NAD+ reduces metalysis by 80% in mice. Increasing NAD+ prevented cancer formation and eliminated existing liver cancer. Remember one of the reasons you get cancer is your immune system is not working well. NR will improve your immune system’s ability to fight cancer.

[ryukenden]

I think some folks are missing the point of the thread. NAD+ does not cause cancer. Cancer uses any and all regenerative pathways in order to spread. Does that mean we should deplete our stem cells, inhibit dna repair, and promote cellular senescence? I would not be in the least surprised if they found that vigorous exercise slightly increases your risk of cancer, but lowers your risk of other types of diseases.

Unfortunately, we have to live with this trade-off until we have more complete control over all bodily processes, which will happen some day. In the meantime, eschewing every new regenerative technology that comes out just ensures you will definitely suffer and die of age-related disease and cancer right on schedule.

Taking a more scientific approach, I know of no intervention studies that show increased cancer rates for any of these substances. Most of the studies show a scenario where cancer is already well-established and has access and uses these pathways. As someone in the thread already noted, of course it does! Cancer metastases is nothing more than unregulated growth. If it didn't use the typical growth pathways to some extent, then that would be the shocking find.

I am medically trained doctor and we know that people have cancerous cells on regular basis. You never know whether NMN or NR may promote some of those cancerous cells into something sinister. There is no proof currently either way, IMO.

[joesixpack]

A major question that I have about this "NAD+ can promote cancer cell growth" theory, is why do so many cancers manifest in middle to old age? If NAD+ is so depleted in our bodies at 60 and older, wouldn't you expect most cancer to appear in the young, rather than the old? Yet most cancer appears in the later years, in people that are not supplementing with anything. Perhaps it is an immune system issue.

[male_1978]

A major question that I have about this "NAD+ can promote cancer cell growth" theory, is why do so many cancers manifest in middle to old age? If NAD+ is so depleted in our bodies at 60 and older, wouldn't you expect most cancer to appear in the young, rather than the old? Yet most cancer appears in the later years, in people that are not supplementing with anything. Perhaps it is an immune system issue.

 

I am only speculating, but i could imagine that this is a pleiotropic problem. When you are young and mostly healthy it might make sense to react on damage with a local reduction of energy like a blowing fuse. This would be very easy to evolve and probably increase the lifespan of multicellular structures. It would also have no global impact, since the damage is rare and a few single cells are not crucial to the system.

 

 

However, when you grow older and damage accumulates this becomes a chronic, global effect, affecting the functionality of the whole organism. You now have the choice to increase the energy for every cell by NAD+, restoring system functionality but also giving energy to bad cells. Is this good or bad? Maybe its good, because evolution did not optimize old organisms anyway and thus the "natural" situation might not be optimal. But its not comparable to having more energy without substantial damage, thats why i guess damage-reducing strategies (which might increase NAD+ indirectly) might be the better way.

[MikeDC]

A major question that I have about this "NAD+ can promote cancer cell growth" theory, is why do so many cancers manifest in middle to old age? If NAD+ is so depleted in our bodies at 60 and older, wouldn't you expect most cancer to appear in the young, rather than the old? Yet most cancer appears in the later years, in people that are not supplementing with anything. Perhaps it is an immune system issue.

It has been demonstrated in mice that when NAD+ is low cancer initiates. You are more likely to get cancer without NR than with NR.

[QuestforLife]

I could not read the full paper. I doubt there is any evidence that external NAD+ increases cancer probability. We already know for normal cells, increased NAD+ reduces cancer probability. Even if senescent cells secrete more inflammatory molecules, it may be adequately compensated by the positive effects on normal cells. The author is trying to make headlines without adequate evidence. Maybe he is working for big pharma to kill the new NAD+ industry that will take away trillions of profits from big pharma.

 

For once I agree with MikeDC. Cancer cells have a plethora of unpredictable nuclear mutations (or sometimes none at all!), but one thing that is common to all is that they have damaged mitochondria. Therefore they have to make energy in the cytoplasm (primarily through glycolysis). This is also related to how they become immortal (overcome replicative senescence).

 

Therefore increasing the selective pressure on mitochondria, i.e. through exercise, fasting, keto, and yes - higher NAD+ levels through supplements, will REDUCE the chance of getting cancer.

 

If you've already got cancer, all bets are off; higher NAD+ probably wouldn't make it worse, unless it somehow reduces the effectiveness of your cancer medication.

 

Here's some more information on the mitochondrial theory of cancer genesis:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC4493566/

[OP2040]

Ya, I can't bring myself to praise MikeD even when he is right.  His entire shtick revolves around defending one particular branded substance.  You better believe that he will completely distort the truth any chance he gets unless it just happens to align with his agenda.

 

I'm definitely not going top stop taking NMN, though periodically.  There are good reasons for some people to be more conservative and others more radical when it comes to various interventions. 

 

It has just become a pet peeve of mine how cancer has become such a bogeyman, even in the basic science field.  Almost every thread gets derailed by cancer paranoia.  On one level, it's understandable.  But I think we have to really let it sink in that when a correlation with cancer is found, it should best be ignored.

 

Just to be a bastard and keep the debate going, but also to demonstrate just how impactful this is even outside of this forum, I'd like to offer another recent example.  If I am remembering right, California was going to put a cancer warning on coffee, or classify it as a carcinogen.  This is a perfect example.  I think we would all probably agree that this is based on bad science.  Coffee has been shown to have innumerable health benefits, the most intriguing of which is a huge reduction in Alzheimer's risk.  IMO, it is actually causing damage to people's lives to scare them away from coffee.

[Oakman]

“Our data show that NAD+ levels influence the secretory activity of senescent cells in a way that may promote tumor progression,”

 

If that is the point to be made of the study, then the prudent approach is to eliminate senescent cells wherever and whenever possible. As NAD+ precursors apparent positive effects are most evident in older populations, and they are the ones with higher cancer rates, which is better... doing nothing and potentially dying of cancer...or using NAD+ enhancement to improve immune and other body processes, while removing senescent cells so The NAD+ therapy can't assist in producing SASP molecules?

[OP2040]

That's a good point.  Senolytics should probably be a precursor to any other attempts at regeneration.  That's the best practical takeaway.

[MikeDC]

A recent paper on mice showed NR rescued senescent muscle stem cells. If it can rescue stem cells, it might be able to rescue senescent cells.

[MikeDC]

Ya, I can't bring myself to praise MikeD even when he is right. His entire shtick revolves around defending one particular branded substance. You better believe that he will completely distort the truth any chance he gets unless it just happens to align with his agenda.

I'm definitely not going top stop taking NMN, though periodically. There are good reasons for some people to be more conservative and others more radical when it comes to various interventions.

It has just become a pet peeve of mine how cancer has become such a bogeyman, even in the basic science field. Almost every thread gets derailed by cancer paranoia. On one level, it's understandable. But I think we have to really let it sink in that when a correlation with cancer is found, it should best be ignored.

Just to be a bastard and keep the debate going, but also to demonstrate just how impactful this is even outside of this forum, I'd like to offer another recent example. If I am remembering right, California was going to put a cancer warning on coffee, or classify it as a carcinogen. This is a perfect example. I think we would all probably agree that this is based on bad science. Coffee has been shown to have innumerable health benefits, the most intriguing of which is a huge reduction in Alzheimer's risk. IMO, it is actually causing damage to people's lives to scare them away from coffee.

All the data shows NR is superior than NMN. I think people pushing NMN has an agenda. I support NR because it is the best scientifically and also based on vast user experiences. A few years down the road I will be remembered as the person pushing for NR while other ignorant people attacks me and bans me.

There are more NMN commercial interest than NR commercial interests in this forum. A few people holds ChromaDex stock. But there are quite a few people here are related to companies selling NMN.

Edited by MikeDC, 21 February 2019 - 07:00 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

I've been out of the loop for awhile, but what data shows that NR is superior to NMN?  

 

I'd think the the difference between the two would be subtle at best.

 

 

 

[OP2040]

All I did was mention that I take NMN, and have for a while now.  I personally don't care whether someone chooses NR or NMN, as at this point it may be a toss up, and at the very least both are somewhat effective.  The main reason I chose NMN is because David Sinclair takes it, and since he knows more about NAD+ than almost anyone else in the world, it makes sense to follow his lead.

 

However, MikeDC's only purpose on this forum is to promote NR.  We joke that he owns stock in it or something, but I'm not so sure it's a just a joke anymore.

[MikeDC]

I've been out of the loop for awhile, but what data shows that NR is superior to NMN?

I'd think the the difference between the two would be subtle at best.

Let’s take the results of a recent mice study comparing NR and NMN on ataxia mice models. It was posted in another thread. The mice were fed NR and NMN on molar bases. Since NMN is 31% heavier than NR, mice were fed 31% more NMN than NR based on weight. But NMN only increased NAD+ 5% more than NR. If you adjust the results based on equal weight, NR is over 20% better than NMN.
Of course increasing NAD+ is not the only factor that demonstrate effectiveness. There are large number of NR users who reports rejuvenation effects like younger skin, hair color change and disappearing age spots. But I have not heard many NMN users with similar effects.
Lastly there is not a single publication of human study on NMN.

[MikeDC]

Let’s take the results of a recent mice study comparing NR and NMN on ataxia mice models. It was posted in another thread. The mice were fed NR and NMN on molar bases. Since NMN is 31% heavier than NR, mice were fed 31% more NMN than NR based on weight. But NMN only increased NAD+ 5% more than NR. If you adjust the results based on equal weight, NR is over 20% better than NMN.
Of course increasing NAD+ is not the only factor that demonstrate effectiveness. There are large number of NR users who reports rejuvenation effects like younger skin, hair color change and disappearing age spots. But I have not heard many NMN users with similar effects.
Lastly there is not a single publication of human study on NMN.

So Sinclair takes NMN and you trust him. Sinclair has commercial interest in NMN. I am sure you also take Resveratrol. Sinclair sold it to a drug company for $700 million and ended up trashing it. Sinclair has no credibility in the scientific community. He is a showman. Tons of people who do not understand science just blindly follows him.

Isn’t this forum created to facilitate the communication of discoveries in anti aging? I truly believe NR is the first effective anti aging pill. Many people doubt it. But I will be proven right in due time. People can take whatever supplement they choose. But I want to correct the misinformation that is rampant in this forum.

Edited by MikeDC, 21 February 2019 - 08:30 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Let’s take the results of a recent mice study comparing NR and NMN on ataxia mice models. It was posted in another thread. The mice were fed NR and NMN on molar bases. Since NMN is 31% heavier than NR, mice were fed 31% more NMN than NR based on weight. But NMN only increased NAD+ 5% more than NR. If you adjust the results based on equal weight, NR is over 20% better than NMN.
Of course increasing NAD+ is not the only factor that demonstrate effectiveness. There are large number of NR users who reports rejuvenation effects like younger skin, hair color change and disappearing age spots. But I have not heard many NMN users with similar effects.
Lastly there is not a single publication of human study on NMN.

 

 

Are there published human studies yet on NR?  

 

And let's grant you that maybe NMN is 20% less effective at raising NAD+ (plasma?) levels.  So what?  What effectively matters is the cost ($) to produce a certain NAD+ increase.  Given that as far as I know there isn't a company out there claiming to have an exclusive patent on synthesizing NMN, in the long run it is likely to be cheaper (if it isn't now).

 

I agree that increasing NAD+ seems like a good idea.  It appears that we have a couple of routes to achieve that. In the long run the most cost effective route will likely win out.

[Daniel Cooper]

All I did was mention that I take NMN, and have for a while now.  I personally don't care whether someone chooses NR or NMN, as at this point it may be a toss up, and at the very least both are somewhat effective.  The main reason I chose NMN is because David Sinclair takes it, and since he knows more about NAD+ than almost anyone else in the world, it makes sense to follow his lead.

 

However, MikeDC's only purpose on this forum is to promote NR.  We joke that he owns stock in it or something, but I'm not so sure it's a just a joke anymore.

 

 

If I'm not mistaken MikeDC is quite open about the fact that he owns Chromadex stock.

[ryukenden]

If I'm not mistaken MikeDC is quite open about the fact that he owns Chromadex stock.

I was thinking to buy some stock but decided not to do so and invested in real estate.