167 replies to this topic

[Turnbuckle]

 

Turnbuckle,
Very glad you are in this thread.... Maybe you did share the specific N and R doses you took in your prior protocols or the current one even. However, I was never able to find them. Do you mind sharing some ideas (from your protocols or in broad generalities only) about dosing of N and R for those who prefer the N+R route as opposed to NR?

Thanks in advance

 

Indeed you should be happy Turnbuckle just ahum "proofed" that NAM by itself produces already more efficiently NAD+ than NR. So you can safe your pennies on buying ribose and just take a lot of NAM. Oh wait, I probably see this wrong again but you folks say that you should take the Ribose so it combines miraculously with NAM into NR first and then coverts to NAD+ ...but now that Turnbuckle just proofed NR is less efficient in boosting NAD+ than NAM I guess that doesnt make sense. So using this valuable reasoning of you folks my feeling tells me there is a even better protocol: deplete yourself of ribose first before taking NAM. Again now that Turnbuckle has ahum "proven" NAM is more efficient in making NAD+ than NR we need to make sure that NAM does not miraculously convert into less efficient NR and reduce the impact of straight NAM conversion....

 

I wish I would just do as I say and enjoy the weekend. Have fun here.

 

 

I don't know why I bother responding to your ill-informed sarcasm, but it has always been my contention that NR is the same as N+R. The major difference is the time delay for NR to get digested into N+R. 

[Ovidus]

 

Turnbuckle,
Very glad you are in this thread.... Maybe you did share the specific N and R doses you took in your prior protocols or the current one even. However, I was never able to find them. Do you mind sharing some ideas (from your protocols or in broad generalities only) about dosing of N and R for those who prefer the N+R route as opposed to NR?

Thanks in advance

 

Indeed you should be happy Turnbuckle just ahum "proofed" that NAM by itself produces already more efficiently NAD+ than NR. So you can safe your pennies on buying ribose and just take a lot of NAM. Oh wait, I probably see this wrong again but you folks say that you should take the Ribose so it combines miraculously with NAM into NR first and then coverts to NAD+ ...but now that Turnbuckle just proofed NR is less efficient in boosting NAD+ than NAM I guess that doesnt make sense. So using this valuable reasoning of you folks my feeling tells me there is a even better protocol: deplete yourself of ribose first before taking NAM. Again now that Turnbuckle has ahum "proven" NAM is more efficient in making NAD+ than NR we need to make sure that NAM does not miraculously convert into less efficient NR and reduce the impact of straight NAM conversion....

 

I wish I would just do as I say and enjoy the weekend. Have fun here.

 

Hahahaa... you are so funny. That was just awesome and very clever too; I am rolling on the floor laughing

 

 

 

Turnbuckle,
Very glad you are in this thread.... Maybe you did share the specific N and R doses you took in your prior protocols or the current one even. However, I was never able to find them. Do you mind sharing some ideas (from your protocols or in broad generalities only) about dosing of N and R for those who prefer the N+R route as opposed to NR?

Thanks in advance

 

 

My protocol tends to get tweaked on a nightly basis as I try different things with it, but this post is close. The core is--

 

nicotinamide — 1.5g

tryptophan — 1g

ribose — 5g (recently reduced to 3g)

 

Just the nicontinamide + ribose part gives a molar equivalent of 3g of NR.

 

 

Much appreciated. I am also leaning towards higher doses of N and higher doses of R; will updated this thread with my observations soon.

[stefan_001]

Turnbuckle,
Very glad you are in this thread.... Maybe you did share the specific N and R doses you took in your prior protocols or the current one even. However, I was never able to find them. Do you mind sharing some ideas (from your protocols or in broad generalities only) about dosing of N and R for those who prefer the N+R route as opposed to NR?

Thanks in advance

Indeed you should be happy Turnbuckle just ahum "proofed" that NAM by itself produces already more efficiently NAD+ than NR. So you can safe your pennies on buying ribose and just take a lot of NAM. Oh wait, I probably see this wrong again but you folks say that you should take the Ribose so it combines miraculously with NAM into NR first and then coverts to NAD+ ...but now that Turnbuckle just proofed NR is less efficient in boosting NAD+ than NAM I guess that doesnt make sense. So using this valuable reasoning of you folks my feeling tells me there is a even better protocol: deplete yourself of ribose first before taking NAM. Again now that Turnbuckle has ahum "proven" NAM is more efficient in making NAD+ than NR we need to make sure that NAM does not miraculously convert into less efficient NR and reduce the impact of straight NAM conversion....

I wish I would just do as I say and enjoy the weekend. Have fun here.

I don't know why I bother responding to your ill-informed sarcasm, but it has always been my contention that NR is the same as N+R. The major difference is the time delay for NR to get digested into N+R.

Probably because you know there is a lot of sense in what I write and you feel compelled to reject it.

Why does the ADPR stay almost flat in the NAM supplementtion? Why would that change with ribose? What was wrong with the cynical reasoning if NAM performs better by itself?

[MikeDC]

Read my previous posts. Only NR needs NRK1. NRK1 is required for the beneficial effects of NR.
Use of NRK1 by other precursors such as NAM is negligible.
So your N+R never get to NR. The NAD+ producing effect is all from NAM. Ribose can help produce a boost of energy. But it may be harmful for longevity just like growth hormones.

[Turnbuckle]

 

What was wrong with the cynical reasoning if NAM performs better by itself?

 

 

Because it doesn't, and NAD+ is just part of the story. I took niacin in large doses for years with no problem, but nicotinamide was different. It always produced an unpleasant feeling, which today I realize was the absence of ribose. 

[stefan_001]

What was wrong with the cynical reasoning if NAM performs better by itself?

Because it doesn't, and NAD+ is just part of the story. I took niacin in large doses for years with no problem, but nicotinamide was different. It always produced an unpleasant feeling, which today I realize was the absence of ribose.

You forgot these questions:
Why does the ADPR stay almost flat in the NAM supplementtion? Why would that change with ribose?

Are you saying that these mice were probably so depleted of ribose that the NAM will work differently? Just to remind you with your molar mass comparisong you know how much ribose you can get out of NR, very little compared to what you advocate. Or are you now going to adjust your protocol that just a bit of extra ribose is enough to perform the N+R combining miracle?

Edited by stefan_001, 23 September 2017 - 11:51 AM.

[Turnbuckle]

 

 

What was wrong with the cynical reasoning if NAM performs better by itself?

Because it doesn't, and NAD+ is just part of the story. I took niacin in large doses for years with no problem, but nicotinamide was different. It always produced an unpleasant feeling, which today I realize was the absence of ribose.

You forgot these questions:
Why does the ADPR stay almost flat in the NAM supplementtion? Why would that change with ribose?

Are you saying that these mice were probably so depleted of ribose that the NAM will work differently? Just to remind you with your molar mass comparisong you know how much ribose you can get out of NR, very little compared to what you advocate. Or are now saying that just a bit of extra ribose is enough to perform the N+R combining miracle?

 

 

 

Why does ADPR stay flat for NR for six data points out of seven? Likely that marks the response to ribose from digested NR entering the system, which doesn't happen with NAM. As for molar mass, half of NR is ribose. It isn't "just a bit," it is a great deal.

[MikeDC]

Consider 250 mg NR dose. 125 mg is ribose. How is that compare with your dose?

[stefan_001]

 

 

 

What was wrong with the cynical reasoning if NAM performs better by itself?

Because it doesn't, and NAD+ is just part of the story. I took niacin in large doses for years with no problem, but nicotinamide was different. It always produced an unpleasant feeling, which today I realize was the absence of ribose.

You forgot these questions:
Why does the ADPR stay almost flat in the NAM supplementtion? Why would that change with ribose?

Are you saying that these mice were probably so depleted of ribose that the NAM will work differently? Just to remind you with your molar mass comparisong you know how much ribose you can get out of NR, very little compared to what you advocate. Or are now saying that just a bit of extra ribose is enough to perform the N+R combining miracle?

 

 

 

Why does ADPR stay flat for NR for six data points out of seven? Likely that marks the response to ribose from digested NR entering the system, which doesn't happen with NAM. As for molar mass, half of NR is ribose. It isn't "just a bit," it is a great deal.

 

 

It does not stay low. The AUC bar shows some 1400 for NR versus 450 or so for NAM.

 

Wrt the ribose your reasoning has been in another thread:

"The most likely explanation is that some of the oral R' is burned for energy before it can be combined into N'R' and thence into NAD''+. And this is why taking R in a stoichiometric excess should improve results"

 

So that's now no longer valid?

 

[Turnbuckle]

 

 

 

It does not stay low. The AUC bar shows some 1400 for NR versus 450 or so for NAM.

 

Wrt the ribose your reasoning has been in another thread:

"The most likely explanation is that some of the oral R' is burned for energy before it can be combined into N'R' and thence into NAD''+. And this is why taking R in a stoichiometric excess should improve results"

 

So that's now no longer valid?

 

 

 

Do you know what AUC means? Apparently not. And as for taking a stoichiometric excess of R, that is still valid. See my post 119.

[stefan_001]

It does not stay low. The AUC bar shows some 1400 for NR versus 450 or so for NAM.

Wrt the ribose your reasoning has been in another thread:
"The most likely explanation is that some of the oral R' is burned for energy before it can be combined into N'R' and thence into NAD''+. And this is why taking R in a stoichiometric excess should improve results"

So that's now no longer valid?

Do you know what AUC means? Apparently not. And as for taking a stoichiometric excess of R, that is still valid. See my post 119.

area under the curve, avoids discussion over interpreting individual data points. If you still belive in a need for excess R then your answers above are not valid.

Edited by stefan_001, 23 September 2017 - 12:59 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

 

area under the curve, avoids discussion over interpreting individual data points. If you still belive in a need for excess R then your answers above are not valid.

 

 

 

What is it about 1.5g NAM and 3g ribose that you think is not an excess of ribose? Can you explain your thinking?

[stefan_001]

area under the curve, avoids discussion over interpreting individual data points. If you still belive in a need for excess R then your answers above are not valid.

What is it about 1.5g NAM and 3g ribose that you think is not an excess of ribose? Can you explain your thinking?

The reason is that in a few posts earlier you explained the differences between behavior not based on a stoichiometric excess R. More specifically you called the R in NR a lot. The beef of our discussion is a few more posts earlier. ADPR stays flat with NAM which appearently only is created by NAD+ consumption. Repeated from earlier post:

Probably we need to look at other indicators like ADPR to asses the actual NAD+ usage that goes simultanuously. NAM shows very little action there. In fact while reading the study again that's also what the authors point out:
Of the metabolites associated with NAD+-consuming activities, ADPR is the only one that must be formed from NAD+ because Nam, MeNam and the oxidized forms of MeNam could appear in liver from the gavaged Nam without conversion to NAD+.

Edited by stefan_001, 23 September 2017 - 01:30 PM.

[scooterboy]

Turnbuckle

Why are you using tryptophan ?

[Harkijn]

Turnbuckle

Why are you using tryptophan ?

Tryptophan (and aspartic acid) are building blocks for de novo synthesis (endogeneous production) of NAD+. Though this synthesis is found not to be very efficient the consensus seems to be that supplementing in moderation can be useful. But taking....grammes of ribose? Per day?

Edited by Harkijn, 23 September 2017 - 03:40 PM.

[stefan_001]

Turnbuckle
Why are you using tryptophan ?

Tryptophan (and aspartic acid) are building blocks for de novo synthesis (endogeneous production) of NAD+. Though this synthesis is found not to be very efficient the consensus seems to be that supplementing in moderation can be useful. But taking....grammes of ribose? Per day?

You wanted people to try and report? You said for the sake of those who dont have access to NR or cannot afford, right? Just know that you are not doing people favors by encouraging. You wrote grammes of ribose? Read this study and keep stating lets not talk about research. Or wait let me guess the miracle NAM + R combining process works so fast that glycation cannot take place. Probably another post of mine that will get negative feedback. But thats what happens when discussion is suppressed.

http://www.sciencedi...304416512000062

d-ribose is a naturally occurring pentose monosaccharide present in all living cells and their microenvironments and is a key component of numerous biomolecules involved in many important metabolic pathways. It also participates in the glycation of proteins producing advanced glycation end products (AGEs) that lead to cell dysfunction and death. As recent studies show, ribosylation, a rapid process, causes protein aggregation in vitro and in vivo.

Ribosylation, leading to the production of significant amounts of AGEs both extracellularly and intracellularly, may be involved in cell dysfunction and subsequent cognitive impairments.

Effect of administration of D-ribose on glyation of blood protein. Administration of D-ribose lowers the blood glucose, leading to hypoglycemia [70–72]. However, under this condition, an increase of glycated plasma protein was significantly observed [57]. The increased glycated protein in blood resulted from ribosylation though the concen- tration of blood glucose decreases.

Edited by stefan_001, 23 September 2017 - 04:13 PM.

[Harkijn]

 

 

Turnbuckle
Why are you using tryptophan ?

Tryptophan (and aspartic acid) are building blocks for de novo synthesis (endogeneous production) of NAD+. Though this synthesis is found not to be very efficient the consensus seems to be that supplementing in moderation can be useful. But taking....grammes of ribose? Per day?

You wanted people to try and report? 

Stefan, just for the clarity of the discussion (such as it is), is that you Turnbuckle?

[MikeDC]

Even an idiot knows it is better to eat complex carbs and let your body balance the conversion based on need and health. Eating large doses of basic molecules like ribose is bound to have side effects. You might get an energy boost, but you will age faster.

This guy is a danger to health of readers here. Sounds like a drug junky.

[stefan_001]

Turnbuckle
Why are you using tryptophan ?

Tryptophan (and aspartic acid) are building blocks for de novo synthesis (endogeneous production) of NAD+. Though this synthesis is found not to be very efficient the consensus seems to be that supplementing in moderation can be useful. But taking....grammes of ribose? Per day?

You wanted people to try and report?

Stefan, just for the clarity of the discussion (such as it is), is that you Turnbuckle?

Yes, but now that I think about it more, in general anybody who encourages this. Ok I should stick to my own statements and stop discussing in this thread. Till somewhere else.

Edited by stefan_001, 23 September 2017 - 04:39 PM.

[Heisok]

Mike you cross many lines, and to me a personal attack such as this is where a line should be drawn!

 

 

 

"Even an idiot knows it is better to eat complex carbs and let your body balance the conversion based on need and health. Eating large doses of basic molecules like ribose is bound to have side effects. You might get an energy boost, but you will age faster.

This guy is a danger to health of readers here. Sounds like a drug junky."

[MikeDC]

I don't know who crossed the line. This is NR area. I was suspended for talking about NR in other thread. This guy has been promoting home made NR and calling NR fraud

[stefan_001]

Mike you cross many lines, and to me a personal attack such as this is where a line should be drawn!

"

You mean that like that's more of a line than encouraging people to chuck down on a continuous basis a large amount of substance that is known to have side effects for a wished for chemical reaction for which there is no scientific proof? And that all to save a few pennies?

Edited by stefan_001, 23 September 2017 - 09:55 PM.

[MikeDC]

look at the RED label on the picture under Nicotinamide and Niacin, "Pro Aging".

http://alivebynature.com

Attached Files

•  IMG_3307.PNG   400.11KB   0 downloads

[Advocatus Diaboli]

This article states:

 

"The doses in these studies and experiments where (sic) intentionally high artificial doses and concentrations of ribose that are not even close to the therapeutic levels and doses recommended by health care professionals, which is from 5 grams per day to as high as 60 grams per day.  6 "

 

"The therapeutic dosage range simply cannot cause serum ribose concentrations to rise high enough to create ribosylation that was found in the laboratory studies."

 

"To further reduce the risk of ribosylation using D-Ribose, health care professionals recommend that the total amount of the daily dosage be split into three (3) daily doses.  This assures that the D-Ribose serum remains at a safe level."

 

(my emphasis by bolding and italics)

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 23 September 2017 - 10:40 PM.

[MikeDC]

It is just hand waving with no clinical data to back it up. Remember mice dose is normally 12x human dose per kg body weight.

[stefan_001]

This article states:

"The doses in these studies and experiments where (sic) intentionally high artificial doses and concentrations of ribose that are not even close to the therapeutic levels and doses recommended by health care professionals, which is from 5 grams per day to as high as 60 grams per day. 6 "

"The therapeutic dosage range simply cannot cause serum ribose concentrations to rise high enough to create ribosylation that was found in the laboratory studies."

"To further reduce the risk of ribosylation using D-Ribose, health care professionals recommend that the total amount of the daily dosage be split into three (3) daily doses. This assures that the D-Ribose serum remains at a safe level."

(my emphasis by bolding and italics)

You are not serious right? It cannot be you have not looked into this and other side effects before deciding to take large amounts, glycation was flagged on this thread before. Ofcourse if you have a medical problem, like mentioned in that article, then the odds change.

If glycation risk doesnt worry you, how about this study:
In summary, oral administration of D-Ribose leads to the impairment of cognitive ability and anxious behavior in mice. Meanwhile, D-Ribose-gavaged mice suffer from both Aβ-like deposition and Tau hyperphosphorylation in their brain, especially in the hippocampus.
https://www.ncbi.nlm...41/#!po=14.1026

They used 3.75g/kg/day dosing. It doesnt say explicitely but I assume they mean per kg of body weight. That would mean they saw this very obvious impact with a equivalent dose for humans for a 70kg weighing person of approx. 20 gram per day. Sure you want to roll the dice that your several gram level dose day after day in hope of an elusive NAD+ boosting effect will overcome the slow damage and still have an overall health benefit?

Edited by stefan_001, 23 September 2017 - 11:07 PM.

[MikeDC]

Extra glycation occurred at 0.8 g/kg dose. That is equivalent to 5g for a human weighting 75kg.

https://www.ncbi.nlm...13/#!po=25.3846

[Heisok]

Mike, and Stefan. I will not waste more time , perhaps there is a language barrier. To me Mike's comment is innappropriate. You left this part out Stefan To your comment below, Stefan, I say argue all you guys want.

 

"Sounds like a drug junky."

Edited by Heisok, 23 September 2017 - 11:32 PM.

[stefan_001]

Mike, and Stefan. I will not waste more time , perhaps there is a language barrier.

"Sounds like a drug junky."

I did not say that I dont agree this is not a comment to make. I simply asked you a question about another line that I see but you dont find relevant to call out. BTW I saw ypu posted in the "NR is trash" thread under supplementts. There was nothing to call out? No lines breached?

Edited by stefan_001, 23 September 2017 - 11:44 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

@Stefan (post #146) and MikeDC (post #145), I made no assertions as to the validity of the claims made in the article that I posted a link to in #144. I merely posted the information as a counterpoint to claims made in this thread (hint, take a look at my nick).

 

@Stefan in your post #146 you write "Meanwhile, D-Ribose-gavaged mice suffer from both Aβ-like deposition and Tau hyperphosphorylation in their brain, especially in the hippocampus. ".

 

Consider this article (High glucose induces formation of tau hyperphosphorylation via Cav-1-mTOR pathway: A potential molecular mechanism for diabetes-induced cognitive dysfunction). Takeaway--Glucose also will induce tau hyperphosphorylation.

 

I personally don't know to what extent, if any, that ingestion of small amounts of D-ribose may be any more harmful than glucose in advancing glycation. I suspect that people ingest more glucose on a daily basis than 5gms D-ribose, for example.

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 24 September 2017 - 01:40 AM.