2266 replies to this topic

[stefan_001]

Here an update on my hair status. Lot of people worried about homeostatis and dissapearing benefits. Placebo works two ways optimistic and pessimistic. However my hair just grows. In the circle a color spot I use for reference and at the arrow point a lonely hair start that has been there for years. I think its pretty clear and it continuous to re-grow at a slow but steady speed. Using NR for 3.5 years now. My age is 48,5 years old. Instead of continuing to loose hair NR halted and reversed it. More importantly its an ongoing process, I can see more hair starts so it will regrow further.

 

Attached Files

•  3+years apart.JPG   59.85KB   3 downloads

Edited by stefan_001, 22 August 2018 - 10:44 AM.

[Phoebus]

well okay stefan, but maybe its placebo hair! 

[Nate-2004]

Here an update on my hair status. Lot of people worried about homeostatis and dissapearing benefits. Placebo works two ways optimistic and pessimistic. However my hair just grows. In the circle a color spot I use for reference and at the arrow point a lonely hair start that has been there for years. I think its pretty clear and it continuous to re-grow at a slow but steady speed. Using NR for 3.5 years now. My age is 48,5 years old. Instead of continuing to loose hair NR halted and reversed it. More importantly its an ongoing process, I can see more hair starts so it will regrow further.

 

I do not see any difference whatsoever between those photos, perhaps you should use the same lighting and take it again.

[stefan_001]

I do not see any difference whatsoever between those photos, perhaps you should use the same lighting and take it again.

 

Nah no interest in that. I you don't see a difference than not. Next picture post in a year or so.

 

But then to put some perspective, if you see no difference than its a win too. No further balding in 3.5 years I think many men would sign up for that.
 

Edited by stefan_001, 22 August 2018 - 07:18 PM.

[stefan_001]

well okay stefan, but maybe its placebo hair! 

 

:-) :-) would love to get more placebo hair
 

[Phoebus]

I do not see any difference whatsoever between those photos, perhaps you should use the same lighting and take it again.

 

if the circle he drew is the center of a clock, there is definitely more hair in the 8 o'clock area for sure 

[Nate-2004]

Nah no interest in that. I you don't see a difference than not. Next picture post in a year or so.

 

But then to put some perspective, if you see no difference than its a win too. No further balding in 3.5 years I think many men would sign up for that.
 

 

LOL no interest in *shedding more light* on the claim? There are no ice giants either, that's sound proof of Thor's existence. 

 

I don't think that's enough to conclude anything. 

[Daniel Cooper]

I see a small difference in the positive direction.  Which isn't the normal direction as men age.

 

 

 

[Heisok]

Stephan, I also see a difference.

 

I have looked at, and edited many many raw and JPEG photos. The color temperature difference does not negate what Phoebus also sees. It simply makes it a little harder to see the detail. The combination of products you have taken is doing something.

 

Congratulations

[Oakman]

Three comments:

 

1) For the cost of 3 1/2 yrs of Niagen, was it worth it?

 

2) I see this as I do most before/after pics of minor plastic surgery...only the recipient would ever know..... And did it really make them more ??? (something). No, it didn't, sadly.

 

3) If it makes you happy (happier), good for you.

[stefan_001]

@Phoebus, Heisok, Daniel thanks for having the right perspective on it.

 

@Oakman When I started I noted down a number of things to track whether or not NR (+some other stuff like honokiol, fisetin etc) does something. The hair shows it does something and the pictures are something i can share/post here. My bladder behavior tells me it does something so does my eyesight and some more but well cannot post pictures of that. Was it worth it so far? Yes absolutely.

[Daniel Cooper]

Stefan - 

 

I assume that you've been orally ingesting the NR?  How much?  Have you considered topical application?

 

 

 

[stefan_001]

@Daniel

 

- Most of first year 125mg morning oral and 125mg evening oral

- I then increased to 250mg morning oral and 250mg evening oral for about 2+ years

- Last 4 months 250mg sublingual in morning and 250mg in evening oral

 

In the first year i have rubbed NR lotion into the hair line about once a week for some months. But as i did that with the filler also mixed in I am not sure if it was that effective as kick starter.It may have done something but the hair regrowth has been very slow but steady all the time and at some point it became more visible.

Edited by stefan_001, 22 August 2018 - 09:03 PM.

[bluemoon]

LOL no interest in *shedding more light* on the claim? There are no ice giants either, that's sound proof of Thor's existence. 

 

I don't think that's enough to conclude anything. 

 

I have been told I clearly have more hair, and I get it cut more often than before. Charles Brenner said that at least the quickness in hair growth is due to NADP+ on a recent interview.

 

I'd like to take a picture of my hair but there is so much not all of it can get in the photo...  

[stefan_001]

LOL no interest in *shedding more light* on the claim? There are no ice giants either, that's sound proof of Thor's existence. 

 

I don't think that's enough to conclude anything. 

 

This is a personal experience sharing thread - beyond sharing the "experience" I added pictures which is more than most people do. For the rest make your own conclusions, disgard etc and do your own thing in terms of supplements and feel free to also post pictures of your progress.

 

Overall the essence of my experience message is that I am doing this 3.5 years which is a significant time, I have been consistent with NR use and not made continuous changes to the dosing / give up and restart / no mega dosing etc and this consistent use has in my personal view bended my aging trajectory. The hair pictures are an indication to substantiate that experience.
 

Edited by stefan_001, 23 August 2018 - 07:47 AM.

[Brian Valerie]

Stefan, I won't doubt your reports of improvements, but I'm sure you'll agree that they don't disprove that there may still be some level of homeostasis, as was demonstrated in the Elysium study by Dellinger, et al.  At this point, we can only wonder if you might have had even better results if you had taken the same total dosage of NR, but had adopted a cycling protocol, perhaps like one of those suggested by the NMN provider Alive By Nature on their website.  Comparisons will be difficult at best, but I'd like to warmly invite those who have cycled NR for some time to continue sharing their success (or failure?) stories.  Thanks! 

[stefan_001]

@brian indeed they dont disproof they may be some level of homeostasis and sure why not cycle. Again my point is that after 3.5 years I believe I am not going to see anymore a surge in homeostasis that would cancel out all NR supplementation benefits.

 

Wrt Alive by Nature I am not a fan at all of some of the things they promote. In particular taken NMN upto 10 times a day or so. If there is a tendency for homeostasis to develop I think the chances that this happens are higher in a "continuous" supplementation mode.

[able]

ABN's  recommendation for 4-8 doses a day seems like a huge marketing problem to me.  I'd guess a lot of people get turned off by the inconvenience and cost.

 

But in my experience it really works.

 

I was taking 2 a day until I read someone suggest taking before and after exercise, so I added that (4 a day total), and it made a big difference for me.

 

Then I saw their 4-8 a day call, I upped it to 8 a day - even better.   6 months ago, if  someone told me I needed to take their pills 8 times a day I'd say no thanks.

 

Surely sublingual NR would also benefit from more frequent dosages.

 

I would think it also might help with homeostasis.  IF a significant % of the NR/NMN gets used by other tissues before being filtered out by liver, there is that much less flooding the liver.

 

To me, dumping a huge dose of NR/NMN  in the liver  to max out NAD+  would be more likely to result in homeostasis vs lots of little doses of NR/NMN direct to the blood/muscles/heart/etc.  

 

You don't depend as much on maximum Liver NAD+ to distribute to the rest of the body.

 

 

 

Edited by able, 23 August 2018 - 09:10 PM.

[stefan_001]

@able I think from all measurements we can see that NR / NMN is processed super fast which is then followed by a transcient NAD+ rise. With a single dose a day and moderate dose it will fall off before the next dose, personally I think with 2 x 250mg I may already be in a semi continuous mode.  So my worry is more on the NAD+ rise if that is constantly high all the time then I can see homeostasis develop more easier. I am not so worried about the liver.

 

I believe btw that multiple dosing has affect, dont doubt your experience as I can notice an effect from sublingual NR. Anyways its all not a big deal, cycling is easy to do.

 

 

Edited by stefan_001, 23 August 2018 - 09:25 PM.

[Oakman]

ABN's  recommendation for 4-8 doses a day seems like a huge marketing problem to me.  I'd guess a lot of people get turned off by the inconvenience and cost.

 

But in my experience it really works.

 

I was taking 2 a day until I read someone suggest taking before and after exercise, so I added that (4 a day total), and it made a big difference for me.

 

Then I saw their 4-8 a day call, I upped it to 8 a day - even better.   6 months ago, if  someone told me I needed to take their pills 8 times a day I'd say no thanks.

 

Surely sublingual NR would also benefit from more frequent dosages.

 

I would think it also might help with homeostasis.  IF a significant % of the NR/NMN gets used by other tissues before being filtered out by liver, there is that much less flooding the liver.

 

To me, dumping a huge dose of NR/NMN  in the liver  to max out NAD+  would be more likely to result in homeostasis vs lots of little doses of NR/NMN direct to the blood/muscles/heart/etc.  

 

You don't depend as much on maximum Liver NAD+ to distribute to the rest of the body.

 

Interesting observations. So thinking about a 1000 mg/day dose. Given we want max amt directly to the tissues/blood over as long a time as possible, and likewise delay/minimize liver filtering and removal.

 

Sublingually, if you use larger doses (say 2 x 500mg), most of it does not get absorbed and you swallow it, similarly to taking a pill really.  As a result most of what you thought you took sublingually gets directly removed in the liver. If you instead take smaller sublingual doses (say 10 x 100mgs), more is absorbed sublingually and gets directly into the blood and tissues, and less gets swallowed and so immediately removed by the liver.

 

On the other hand, the only hope for getting an oral dose to the blood/tissues is to overwhelm the liver and get some spillover in the blood. Of course, even that gets removed shortly by the liver filtering. So oral dosing makes no sense (and takes larger doses) unless you primarily only want to get to the liver.

 

For things you want to get into the blood/tissues, sublingual (and/or bucal) is the only logical, and efficient choice. As a bonus, the residual swallowed dose is used by the liver, but as it's supplied gradually over time in smaller amts, homeostasis response is limited. Am I missing anything? 

[stefan_001]

I think it depends what homeostasis response you are worried about. There is often talk about CD38 and that is not specifically tied to the liver

[able]

Interesting observations. So thinking about a 1000 mg/day dose. Given we want max amt directly to the tissues/blood over as long a time as possible, and likewise delay/minimize liver filtering and removal.

 

Sublingually, if you use larger doses (say 2 x 500mg), most of it does not get absorbed and you swallow it, similarly to taking a pill really.  As a result most of what you thought you took sublingually gets directly removed in the liver. If you instead take smaller sublingual doses (say 10 x 100mgs), more is absorbed sublingually and gets directly into the blood and tissues, and less gets swallowed and so immediately removed by the liver.

 

On the other hand, the only hope for getting an oral dose to the blood/tissues is to overwhelm the liver and get some spillover in the blood. Of course, even that gets removed shortly by the liver filtering. So oral dosing makes no sense (and takes larger doses) unless you primarily only want to get to the liver.

 

For things you want to get into the blood/tissues, sublingual (and/or bucal) is the only logical, and efficient choice. As a bonus, the residual swallowed dose is used by the liver, but as it's supplied gradually over time in smaller amts, homeostasis response is limited. Am I missing anything? 

 

Yes, that is what I was thinking.

 

Liu says that at 50 mg/kg, NONE of the NR/NMN escapes the liver. CD38 metabolizes to NAM, and is excreted from liver to bloodstream where other tissues must use their salvage pathway for NAD+.

 

Yet clearly they have different effect than oral NAM.  Some must escape the Liver.  Studies that show effectiveness often use 300-400 Mg/kg a day.  Does higher dosages result in more making it outside the liver?

 

Trammel/Brenner show a 270% increase in liver NAD from a single dose of 1000 mg.  That drops to 90% after 1 month, and 55% at 2 months (Elysium study).

 

That is the homeostasis I am talking about - liver centric.  Liu says that is the source for most NAD+ in the body.  ( I don't recall - what happens to NAD+ levels in other tissues over months of supplementation? )

 

Is that due to more CD38 being utilized to keep NAD+ levels in liver lower, and is that bad or good or neutral?

 

Perhaps that limits the amount of NAD+ that escapes the liver, and can be avoided or minimized by not relying entirely on the liver NAD+ levels to supply NAD+ elsewhere.

 

That is why I think the frequent smaller dosages may work better. 

Edited by able, 24 August 2018 - 07:43 AM.

[Phoebus]

 

 

Yet clearly they have different effect than oral NAM.  Some must escape the Liver.  Studies that show effectiveness often use 300-400 Mg/kg a day.  Does higher dosages result in more making it outside the liver?

 

 

 

yes because some is absorbed directly in to the bloodstream from the stomach and intestines before it hits the liver 

 

that short window of it being in the bloodstream before it hits the liver is the therapuetic window, beyond that it does nothing more than NAM does since the liver converts it all to NAM 

 

this is why I wish there was a pure NR source so I could take it internally with DMSO as this would drive the NR deep into the body before the liver can disarm it

Edited by Phoebus, 24 August 2018 - 03:01 PM.

[VERITAS INCORRUPTUS]

I know people get bent out of shape when noting alternatives to NR itself, however, as to the prior post above and notation of use such via DMSO-based route as optimal, I see best method as transdermal NAD+ itself.  Along with I see sipping a morning drink of niacinamide and ribose throughout the morning as well as the best way to increase NAD+ as the end goal, especially as to the economic expense factor.

 

Anyway, carry on, just thought it may have worth to mention and this is the only thread I at all follow on the topic, as I am "set", but curious still as to what people relate.

[Phoebus]

 I see best method as transdermal NAD+ itself. 

 

agreed. This is what i was trying to do but you cant get pure NAD+ unless you have a lab address. Impossible. 

[Harkijn]

 this is the only thread I at all follow on the topic, as I am "set", but curious still as to what people relate.

Why not read some more of our threads?

Some of them discuss NAD administration, other threads point out the downsides of regularly taking niacinamide and others yet discuss the negative effects of regularly taking ribose. Final answers can be hard to get, but your input may be valued highly.

[zephyrprime]

I would think it also might help with homeostasis.  IF a significant % of the NR/NMN gets used by other tissues before being filtered out by liver, there is that much less flooding the liver.

 

 

Well that would be true for sublingual dosing.  For oral dosing, lots of small doses may just allow the liver to filter more out because nutrients you eat pass through the liver before they go to the rest of the body.

https://www.saintluk...how-liver-works

[able]

Well that would be true for sublingual dosing.  For oral dosing, lots of small doses may just allow the liver to filter more out because nutrients you eat pass through the liver before they go to the rest of the body.

https://www.saintluk...how-liver-works

 

Yup.  I was talking about sublingual, hence the sentence  that you must have overlooked:

 

Surely sublingual NR would also benefit from more frequent dosages.

 

I would think it also might help with homeostasis.  IF a significant % of the NR/NMN gets used by other tissues before being filtered out by liver, there is that much less flooding the liver.

 

 

Funny, just last year I thought it was nice that a single dose of NR provides a kind of slow, time-release NAD+ boost, so I didn't have to bother with more than one a day.  Now I take 8 a day sublingual.  

Edited by able, 25 August 2018 - 12:38 AM.

[zephyrprime]

 

there is no NR pure powder available and it really annoys me since the Niagen has whatever nonsense filler in there and it interferes with sublingual absorption 

 

You need something in there to slow down the dissolution rate of sublinguals.  Without that, the active ingredient would dissolve in a minute and the vast majority would be swallowed rather than absorbed.  Only a small amount of most materials can be absorbed per second.

[able]

Phoebus, on 14 Jun 2018 - 1:54 PM, said:

 

 

there is no NR pure powder available and it really annoys me since the Niagen has whatever nonsense filler in there and it interferes with sublingual absorption 

 

You need something in there to slow down the dissolution rate of sublinguals.  Without that, the active ingredient would dissolve in a minute and the vast majority would be swallowed rather than absorbed.  Only a small amount of most materials can be absorbed per second.

 

The NR capsules are formulated to be swallowed, not sublingual.  The fillers are chosen to make it flow better and fill the capsule so there is less loss, not for properties as a sublingual.

 

The pure NR powder Revgenetics briefly sold dissolved and was absorbed just fine as a sublingual.  The problem was, it tastes horrible, due to the salt that is added to  ALL NR to make it stable.  

 

There is no Nicotinamide Riboside sold anywhere.  It is all actually Nicotinamide Riboside + Chloride.  The Chloride added to make it stable, also makes it unpalatable as a sublingual.

 

Perhaps a little sweetener can be added to make it taste less bad, and they can market such a powder with no other fillers?

Edited by able, 25 August 2018 - 06:45 AM.