2266 replies to this topic

[stefan_001]

 

 

MikeDC

Your comment above "Too bad for you." needs to be corrected to "Too bad For NR."

I don’t think so. Nothing works for everybody. Some people may not absorb or have issues converting NR to NAD+

 

.....My biological age dropped from a post NR 76 to 45......

 

Here is the problem. You wrote earlier that:

 

Posted 11 November 2017 - 04:16 AM

I am a 59 year old male living in Southern California.  I was one of the participants in a human trials study of NMN from July 2015 until May 2016.  I also participated in a trial of NR beginning June 2017 for 3 months and am now back on the NMN. All that I can say is that I experienced dramatic improvements physically and in almost all aspects of my blood chemistry while on the NMN and zero changes or improvements while on the NR. To quote my GP when she reviewed my blood panels after taking the NMN for 6 months, "you've got the blood of a 25 year old".

 

Then you have stated that:

My daily NMN dosage was 1 gram per 28 lbs of body weight.  I weighed 210, so 7.5 grams per day. Half was taken in the AM about 1.5 hours after my usual waking time and the other half was taken in the evening about 3 hours prior to my usual going to sleep time.

 

So you are 59, you went to blood of a 25 year old with 7.5grams NMN per day until May 2016, then went in 1.5 years to a biological age of 76 years old despite NR  at a still very high dose of 1gram.

 

Well what we unfortunately know is that ultra high NMN dosing does not trigger any long lasting health benefits. On the contrary there seems to be a risk for accelerated aging after stopping - according your experience the detoriation rate is 34 years / calender year

 

 

 

Edited by stefan_001, 01 January 2018 - 11:26 PM.

[markkhicks]

I am a 61 year old male who has taken NR at the 250 daily dosage level for a few years. I take a few other things as well. I have never experienced negative effects from NR . I am relatively active and have been all my life. I’m interested in what blood tests I need to get to see my biological versus chronological age. I would also be interested in hearing what others are stacking for supplements along with NR.

[MikeDC]

I am a 61 year old male who has taken NR at the 250 daily dosage level for a few years. I take a few other things as well. I have never experienced negative effects from NR . I am relatively active and have been all my life. I’m interested in what blood tests I need to get to see my biological versus chronological age. I would also be interested in hearing what others are stacking for supplements along with NR.

The biological age stuff may not be that accurate. I take Ubiquinol, fish oil, multivitamin and vitamin D.

[LawrenceW]

I am a 61 year old male who has taken NR at the 250 daily dosage level for a few years. I take a few other things as well. I have never experienced negative effects from NR . I am relatively active and have been all my life. I’m interested in what blood tests I need to get to see my biological versus chronological age. I would also be interested in hearing what others are stacking for supplements along with NR.

 

Hello Mark.

 

These guys have a fairly cost effective test called Inner Age.

 

http://info.insidetr...ge-site-smart-0

[Gingerbread Man]

Well, I know Niagen has changed my life for the better. I started with only 75mg/day and noticed significant changes in about 2 weeks. I have taken 375mg/day for a long period of time. I only take 100 to 150/day now and can't imagine my life without it. It's much cheaper and I feel for me at this point, more/day isn't necessarily better.

[Turnbuckle]

I see this statement--There have been numerous studies of NR and NMN in mice that showed no negative side effects in Human Equivalent Dosages (HED) of 2.1 to 17 grams per day. If so, then one tenth of the higher dose would be 1.7 grams. If so, I wonder if this 250 mg recommendation is marketing to keep the price reasonable. 

Edited by Turnbuckle, 02 January 2018 - 05:59 PM.

[PAMPAGUY]

Im 71 and the higher dose gave me more energy. I suspect larger mitocondria replacing the smaller ones that are less efficient. (younger) My stamina is up by at least 50%.

[PAMPAGUY]

I used NR for a year before I wised up. Don't kid yourself B3 is B3. Paying 5 times as much for Bayer aspirin vs generic. Sucker born everyday. Chromax has sold you a bill of goods and will keep raising price until they match NMN. Never had more stamina and energy in years. Feel great.

[stefan_001]

I used NR for a year before I wised up. Don't kid yourself B3 is B3. Paying 5 times as much for Bayer aspirin vs generic. Sucker born everyday. Chromax has sold you a bill of goods and will keep raising price until they match NMN. Never had more stamina and energy in years. Feel great.

 

So you used NR for a year at 250mg and then switched to N+R at grams level and feel more energetic? Or you used NR at both 250mg and 500mg and noticed that 500mg is better and then switched to N+R and feel equally good?

 

And B3 is not B3 but if you dont see the difference never mind. But just one question related if B3 is B3 why are you taking N + R and not just N or R or just B3?

 

and its amazing that every discussion here becomes a "bash NR" party.

Edited by stefan_001, 02 January 2018 - 07:07 PM.

[stefan_001]

 

its amazing that every discussion here becomes a "bash NR" party.

 

I have no dog in this race but I see it more of "bash NR price" than the compound itself which is probably helpful but not as helpful as it is expensive and therefore does not justify its VERY high cost.

 

 

The thread is called personal experiences so its about what you notice or dont notice. People are free to open an "economical" evaluation thread
 

[floweryriddle]

Guys, this is the personal experience thread. Can we keep it on track please? 

[stefan_001]

yes agree lets get back to the thread topic

Edited by stefan_001, 02 January 2018 - 10:07 PM.

[smithx]

A few points:

Suppliers of a supplement are not typically the ones who do studies on the supplement. They may, but that's the exception. Typically people take a supplement because of research done by university researchers, if in fact they pay attention to research.

What matters in terms of supplement suppliers is the identity and purity of what they are supplying. If the compound is identical to what was studied, as shown by analytical testing, the results (if true) should apply to any manufacturer.

This may be less true in the case of undefined supplements like extracts, which could be sensitive to the extraction method, solvents, etc. and are harder to test since they may contain hundreds or thousands of compounds, only some of which are the ones of interest.

But in the case of NR and NMN, we know what the supplement should contain: a single compound, ideally. The way to verify this is by: a) Looking at the supplier's Certificate of Analysis from a reputable lab and b) even better by getting your own analysis done by a lab you trust, using a sample taken directly from the batch you are planning to utilize.

The NMN linked earlier in this thread does in fact have a C of A from an independent lab, which can be seen on this page: https://www.amazon.c...07853QLQB/?th=1

So it's at least pretty likely to contain the NMN it is claiming to contain.

Whether NMN works for humans or works as well or better or worse than NR or N+R or anything else is another question, best determined by perusing the published studies and perhaps by trying each variation out on one's self.


With regard to the contentious discussions which always seem to appear when MikeinDC participates, I would implore everyone including him to please try to restrain from argumentative comments and instead restrict the discussion to actual personal experiences with NR or similar compounds.

[smithx]

These guys have a fairly cost effective test called Inner Age.
 
http://info.insidetr...ge-site-smart-0

What they are testing is just standard physical exam bloodwork:
https://www.insidetr...r.com/ultimate/

It's unclear if or how this would be meaningfully related to one's age.

[TMNMK]

 

 

 

MikeDC

Your comment above "Too bad for you." needs to be corrected to "Too bad For NR."

I don’t think so. Nothing works for everybody. Some people may not absorb or have issues converting NR to NAD+

 

.....My biological age dropped from a post NR 76 to 45......

 

Here is the problem. You wrote earlier that:

 

Posted 11 November 2017 - 04:16 AM

I am a 59 year old male living in Southern California.  I was one of the participants in a human trials study of NMN from July 2015 until May 2016.  I also participated in a trial of NR beginning June 2017 for 3 months and am now back on the NMN. All that I can say is that I experienced dramatic improvements physically and in almost all aspects of my blood chemistry while on the NMN and zero changes or improvements while on the NR. To quote my GP when she reviewed my blood panels after taking the NMN for 6 months, "you've got the blood of a 25 year old".

 

Then you have stated that:

My daily NMN dosage was 1 gram per 28 lbs of body weight.  I weighed 210, so 7.5 grams per day. Half was taken in the AM about 1.5 hours after my usual waking time and the other half was taken in the evening about 3 hours prior to my usual going to sleep time.

 

So you are 59, you went to blood of a 25 year old with 7.5grams NMN per day until May 2016, then went in 1.5 years to a biological age of 76 years old despite NR  at a still very high dose of 1gram.

 

Well what we unfortunately know is that ultra high NMN dosing does not trigger any long lasting health benefits. On the contrary there seems to be a risk for accelerated aging after stopping - according your experience the detoriation rate is 34 years / calender year

 

 

"seems to be a risk for accelerated aging after stopping"

 

@stefan_001 are there studies that show this may be the case or are you deriving this from anecdotal or personal information? Not attempting to be contrary, purely curious as I haven't seen anything in any of the studies to date that shows this as a possible result.

Edited by TMNMK, 04 January 2018 - 11:14 PM.

[stefan_001]

 

 

 

 

I don’t think so. Nothing works for everybody. Some people may not absorb or have issues converting NR to NAD+

 

.....My biological age dropped from a post NR 76 to 45......

 

Here is the problem. You wrote earlier that:

 

Posted 11 November 2017 - 04:16 AM

I am a 59 year old male living in Southern California.  I was one of the participants in a human trials study of NMN from July 2015 until May 2016.  I also participated in a trial of NR beginning June 2017 for 3 months and am now back on the NMN. All that I can say is that I experienced dramatic improvements physically and in almost all aspects of my blood chemistry while on the NMN and zero changes or improvements while on the NR. To quote my GP when she reviewed my blood panels after taking the NMN for 6 months, "you've got the blood of a 25 year old".

 

Then you have stated that:

My daily NMN dosage was 1 gram per 28 lbs of body weight.  I weighed 210, so 7.5 grams per day. Half was taken in the AM about 1.5 hours after my usual waking time and the other half was taken in the evening about 3 hours prior to my usual going to sleep time.

 

So you are 59, you went to blood of a 25 year old with 7.5grams NMN per day until May 2016, then went in 1.5 years to a biological age of 76 years old despite NR  at a still very high dose of 1gram.

 

Well what we unfortunately know is that ultra high NMN dosing does not trigger any long lasting health benefits. On the contrary there seems to be a risk for accelerated aging after stopping - according your experience the detoriation rate is 34 years / calender year

 

 

"seems to be a risk for accelerated aging after stopping"

 

@stefan_001 are there studies that show this may be the case or are you deriving this from anecdotal or personal information? Not attempting to be contrary, purely curious as I haven't seen anything in any of the studies to date that shows this as a possible result.

 

I have not seen any research and I doubt at normal dosing this would happen. This is purely based on the anecdotal report where ultra high extreme dosing was used for a long time as described above which may be potentially having adverse effects as it is in the range where the toxicology reports says you should not go. I assume LawrenceW could comment hos own view on this as he reported the numbers on biological age.

 

[Turnbuckle]

 

 

Well what we unfortunately know is that ultra high NMN dosing does not trigger any long lasting health benefits. On the contrary there seems to be a risk for accelerated aging after stopping - according your experience the detoriation rate is 34 years / calender year

 

 

 

This is an interesting comment, though I wish stefan had included research to back it up. In any case, taking anything that ups NAD continuously for a long period of time is likely a bad idea. Mitochondria make their own NAD, and if you supply all they need, then mtDNA loops that are defective for producing NAD can build up as they are shielded from quality control. Cells thus become addicted to the exogenous supplement. Take it away and don't be surprised if those cells go into a rapid decline as mito function drops off a cliff.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 05 January 2018 - 12:53 PM.

[ceridwen]

I have got a bit worse recently after lowering my NMN intake perhaps that's what caused it. I thought it was being bad over Christmas. Maybe it was both?

[LawrenceW]

Stefan.

 

I have seen the toxicology study on NR.  I have not been able to find a toxicology study on NMN.  DO you happen to have access to one?

[ryukenden]

Well what we unfortunately know is that ultra high NMN dosing does not trigger any long lasting health benefits. On the contrary there seems to be a risk for accelerated aging after stopping - according your experience the detoriation rate is 34 years / calender year

This is an interesting comment, though I wish stefan had included research to back it up. In any case, taking anything that ups NAD continuously for a long period of time is likely a bad idea. Mitochondria make their own NAD, and if you supply all they need, then mtDNA loops that are defective for producing NAD can build up as they are shielded from quality control. Cells thus become addicted to the exogenous supplement. Take it away and don't be surprised if those cells go into a rapid decline as mito function drops off a cliff.

Interesting. Taking NR or NMN regularly may be bad for us.

[stefan_001]

Stefan.

 

I have seen the toxicology study on NR.  I have not been able to find a toxicology study on NMN.  DO you happen to have access to one?

 

From long term perspective I can only find this study, I think we all know that one:

http://www.sciencedi...550413116304958

 

So based on the fact that a 300mg/kg/day mouse dose did not show toxicity one could speculate a HED dose of 1.6g for humans should not show that either. FDA would say that one should apply to that a safety factor of 10 untill there are higher limits tested.

 

One would need to think what happens at such high dosing. What is rate limiting? and where? If all is converted to NAD+ and used up what happens to the products? Can the salvage path use them? They pile up somewhere e.g. NAM (SIRT down)? Complex......

Edited by stefan_001, 07 January 2018 - 06:55 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

 

Stefan.

 

I have seen the toxicology study on NR.  I have not been able to find a toxicology study on NMN.  DO you happen to have access to one?

 

From long term perspective I can only find this study, I think we all know that one:

http://www.sciencedi...550413116304958

 

So based on the fact that a 300mg/kg/day mouse dose did not show toxicity one could speculate a HED dose of 1.6g for humans should not show that either. FDA would say that one should apply to that a safety factor of 10 untill there are higher limits tested.

 

One would need to think what happens at such high dosing. What is rate limiting? and where? If all is converted to NAD+ and used up what happens to the products? Can the salvage path use them? They pile up somewhere e.g. NAM (SIRT down)? Complex......

 

 

 

Odd that long term NAD+ was almost unchanged after 6 months of daily NMN. (Fig. 1E) In skeletal muscle and white adipose tissue, there was no change, and only about 25% higher for the highest dose in the liver. 

Edited by Turnbuckle, 07 January 2018 - 07:06 PM.

[Slobec]

   For now, it seems that supplementing with NR is not better than with niacinamide.  Here are quotes from few studies:

“This evidence indicates that NR is converted to NAM before absorption occurs and that this reaction is the rate-limiting step ”

 

“NR has been shown be converted to Nam before being absorbed or reaching tissues”

“we were surprised to find that NR exerts only a subtle influence on the steady state concentration of NAD in muscles. Our tracer studies suggest that this is largely attributable to breakdown of orally delivered NR into NAM prior to reaching the muscle. ”


https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC4985182/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.../pubmed/6218262
https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5573990/

 

Anyway, if you are taking NAD precursors in big dosage it may be wise to take some methyl donors with it http://www.freewebs....cin_therapy.pdf

Edited by Slobec, 22 February 2018 - 02:29 PM.

[MikeDC]

For now, it seems that supplementing with NR is not better than with niacinamide. Here are quotes from few studies:

“This evidence indicates that NR is converted to NAM before absorption occurs and that this reaction is the rate-limiting step ”

“NR has been shown be converted to Nam before being absorbed or reaching tissues”

“we were surprised to find that NR exerts only a subtle influence on the steady state concentration of NAD in muscles. Our tracer studies suggest that this is largely attributable to breakdown of orally delivered NR into NAM prior to reaching the muscle. ”


https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC4985182/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.../pubmed/6218262
https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5573990/

Anyway, if you are taking NAD precursors in big dosage it may be wise to take some methyl donors with it http://www.freewebs....cin_therapy.pdf

You are on the wrong thread and you are preaching that NR doesn’t work while people who posted on thread showed it worked great. NR is far better anti aging benefit than Nicotinamide and Niacin. Tru Niagen is now best sellers on amazon under vitamin B3 Niacin even though it is 1600% more expensive than Niacin and Nicotinamide.

[Harkijn]

   For now, it seems that supplementing with NR is not better than with niacinamide.  Here are quotes from few studies:

 

 

Slobec, Mike DC is right, though I wish he would find kinder manners to bring his points across.

 

This is the personal experiences thread and if you take a look at some of the other NR threads you will see that the studies you quote have been amply discussed. And many other studies are discussed that point to a clear advantage of NR in various diseases of mice and men. For more definitive facts we just have to wait for new studies to be published.

 

As for personal experiences, I hope you wil try moderate amounts of NR and post here. As for me I have been taking 250 mg-375mgs for four or five years now and my subjective feeling is that it does me good. And no, it will not reverse aging :-)

 

 

[MikeDC]

 

For now, it seems that supplementing with NR is not better than with niacinamide. Here are quotes from few studies:
 

Slobec, Mike DC is right, though I wish he would find kinder manners to bring his points across.

This is the personal experiences thread and if you take a look at some of the other NR threads you will see that the studies you quote have been amply discussed. And many other studies are discussed that point to a clear advantage of NR in various diseases of mice and men. For more definitive facts we just have to wait for new studies to be published.

As for personal experiences, I hope you wil try moderate amounts of NR and post here. As for me I have been taking 250 mg-375mgs for four or five years now and my subjective feeling is that it does me good. And no, it will not reverse aging :-)

Yes, it reverses aging for sure. A 29 year woman examined my skin and two men 10 years younger. She said my skin is like hers and the other two looked old

 

Edited by APBT, 22 February 2018 - 05:22 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

 

You are on the wrong thread and you are preaching that NR doesn’t work while people who posted on thread showed it worked great. NR is far better anti aging benefit than Nicotinamide and Niacin. Tru Niagen is now best sellers on amazon under vitamin B3 Niacin even though it is 1600% more expensive than Niacin and Nicotinamide.

 

 

 

Whether or not Tru Niagen is a best seller on Amazon has exactly nothing to do with whether or not it works.

[MikeDC]

You are on the wrong thread and you are preaching that NR doesn’t work while people who posted on thread showed it worked great. NR is far better anti aging benefit than Nicotinamide and Niacin. Tru Niagen is now best sellers on amazon under vitamin B3 Niacin even though it is 1600% more expensive than Niacin and Nicotinamide.

Whether or not Tru Niagen is a best seller on Amazon has exactly nothing to do with whether or not it works.

Of course it does. It is natural selection process。people are finding NR provide much more benefits than Niacin and Nicotinamide.

[Heisok]

Once again, this has nothing to do with the benefits of N.R. They are real, but how it acts, and whether there are alternatives is still a question.

 

Fakespot Review Grade

F

Our analysis detected 56.2% low quality reviews

    Fakespot Review Analyzer Report

TRU NIAGEN - The world's most advanced NAD booster (1 bottle/60 capsules) 250mg NIAGEN (Nicotinamide Riboside, NR)

Sold by TRU NIAGEN
Company Product Reviews Grade:D

In category B3 (Niacin)

Fakespot Grade

F

TRUSTWERTY™Adjusted Rating

    

Total Reviews

131

 

Edited by Heisok, 22 February 2018 - 07:03 PM.

[stefan_001]

There is a constant flow of people that say it helps them. Look at this forum which products have survived an initial hype? Or look at the yahoo message board. Or look at the constant flow of research into NR. The only way this constant motivation from people to write about it, argue about it, buy it, research it is because it actually works.

Edited by stefan_001, 22 February 2018 - 07:11 PM.