192 replies to this topic

[MikeDC]

Even if NMN is quickly utilized in the tissue such as muscles, the NAD+ will become NAM and you should see a prolonged NAD+ Elevation from NAM recycling. The lack of NAM recycling means either most of NMN are wasted or NAM recycling is down regulated.

I think this is why there should be renewed focus on NAMPT regulation in this forum. Google Calico is pursuing P7C3 drugs which regulate NAMPT activity and NAM/NAD+ recycling. Exercise upregulates NAMPT. I think NAMPT regulation may ultimately prove to be a better risk/reward approach.

It is just the opposite. You want high NAD+ and lower NAMPT. Up regulation of NAMPT has been shown in a few papers to promote inflammation. Extra cellular NAMPT is pro inflammatory. NAM supplementation up regulate extra cellular NAMPT because NAM is outside cells before entering cells. One possible reason why NR is better at promoting health than NAM is because NAM produced from NAD+ utilization is contained inside cells. NR enters cells and convert to NMN. NMN is converted to NAD+. NAD+ is utilized and produce NAM inside cells. NAM is then recycled to produce NAD+ inside cells. High levels of NAM outside cells is bad, but inside cells is not.

[able]

 

Yes, it seems some NMN breaks down to NR and then NAM. We don't really know how much, do we?

Some is quickly utilized in tissue. The remainder that ends up as NR/NAM should continue cycling thru the system.

That NMN tends to result in much lower levels of NAD+ in the liver seems to indicate that most of it was utilized by tissue, else it would elevate NAD+ in liver much more, wouldn't it?

If sublingual NMN increases the percentage that makes its way to tissues, and avoids the breakdown to NR/NAM, wouldn't that be a good thing? It seems to me that would allow a much higher dosage of NMN to be effective, and not end up getting pissed away as NAM.

Even if NMN is quickly utilized in the tissue such as muscles, the NAD+ will become NAM and you should see a prolonged NAD+ Elevation from NAM recycling. The lack of NAM recycling means either most of NMN are wasted or NAM recycling is down regulated.

 
Faulty logic once again.
 
As you said, NMN is quickly utilized in tissue such as muscles.  
 
It is INSIDE the tissues
 
It likely DOES recycle to NAM - INSIDE the cells
 
Researchers testing levels of NAD+ do not see the long lasting increase of NAD+  in the blood or liver because it is inside cells where it is most needed.

Edited by Michael, 25 February 2018 - 06:11 PM.
trim quotes

[able]

 

 

Even if NMN is quickly utilized in the tissue such as muscles, the NAD+ will become NAM and you should see a prolonged NAD+ Elevation from NAM recycling. The lack of NAM recycling means either most of NMN are wasted or NAM recycling is down regulated.

I think this is why there should be renewed focus on NAMPT regulation in this forum. Google Calico is pursuing P7C3 drugs which regulate NAMPT activity and NAM/NAD+ recycling. Exercise upregulates NAMPT. I think NAMPT regulation may ultimately prove to be a better risk/reward approach.

It is just the opposite. You want high NAD+ and lower NAMPT. Up regulation of NAMPT has been shown in a few papers to promote inflammation. Extra cellular NAMPT is pro inflammatory. NAM supplementation up regulate extra cellular NAMPT because NAM is outside cells before entering cells. One possible reason why NR is better at promoting health than NAM is because NAM produced from NAD+ utilization is contained inside cells. NR enters cells and convert to NMN. NMN is converted to NAD+. NAD+ is utilized and produce NAM inside cells. NAM is then recycled to produce NAD+ inside cells. High levels of NAM outside cells is bad, but inside cells is not.

 

 

 

Extracellular NAMPT is very well known to be both inflammatory and anti-inflammatory.  Researchers are unsure why and how this works.

[tunt01]

 

 

Extracellular NAMPT is very well known to be both inflammatory and anti-inflammatory.  Researchers are unsure why and how this works.

 

 

This paper by Imai seems to give some insight.  Doesn't seem like eNAMPT is entirely bad and functions as a feedback mechanism from adipose tissue (adipokine).  He developed a mouse model (ANKO, ANKI) of adipose Nampt KO and KI, that seems to test this issue of how adkipose eNAMPT acts as a feedback mechanism on hypothalamus and hypothalamic control of aging.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pubmed/28725474

 

Imai, S. (2016). The NAD World 2.0: the importance of the inter-tissue communication mediated by NAMPT/NAD+/SIRT1 in mammalian aging and longevity control. Npj Systems Biology And Applications, 2(1). doi:10.1038/npjsba.2016.18

 

 

In this other paper, Imai seems to show that SIRT1 deacetylates iNAMPT to create eNAMPT. 

 

Yoon, M., Yoshida, M., Johnson, S., Takikawa, A., Usui, I., & Tobe, K. et al. (2015). SIRT1-Mediated eNAMPT Secretion from Adipose Tissue Regulates Hypothalamic NAD+ and Function in Mice. Cell Metabolism, 21(5), 706-717. doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2015.04.002

[MikeDC]

 

 

Yes, it seems some NMN breaks down to NR and then NAM. We don't really know how much, do we?

Some is quickly utilized in tissue. The remainder that ends up as NR/NAM should continue cycling thru the system.

That NMN tends to result in much lower levels of NAD+ in the liver seems to indicate that most of it was utilized by tissue, else it would elevate NAD+ in liver much more, wouldn't it?

If sublingual NMN increases the percentage that makes its way to tissues, and avoids the breakdown to NR/NAM, wouldn't that be a good thing? It seems to me that would allow a much higher dosage of NMN to be effective, and not end up getting pissed away as NAM.

Even if NMN is quickly utilized in the tissue such as muscles, the NAD+ will become NAM and you should see a prolonged NAD+ Elevation from NAM recycling. The lack of NAM recycling means either most of NMN are wasted or NAM recycling is down regulated.

 

Faulty logic once again.

As you said, NMN is quickly utilized in tissue such as muscles.

It is INSIDE the tissues

It likely DOES recycle to NAM - INSIDE the cells

Researchers testing levels of NAD+ do not see the long lasting increase of NAD+ in the blood or liver because it is inside cells where it is most needed.

 

The NMN study measured NAD+ in the muscles one hour after NMN supplementation. NAD+ was only raised by 17%, which is the same as in liver. Where did the NAM go?

Edited by Michael, 25 February 2018 - 06:13 PM.
trim quotes, cleaning quote mess

[MikeDC]

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pt inflammation

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pt inflammation

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pt inflammation

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pt inflammation

https://www.ncbi.nlm...8333382/related

https://www.ncbi.nlm...pt inflammation

Edited by MikeDC, 25 February 2018 - 05:15 PM.

[tunt01]

This last paper looks interesting.

[able]

Faulty logic once again.

As you said, NMN is quickly utilized in tissue such as muscles.

It is INSIDE the tissues

It likely DOES recycle to NAM - INSIDE the cells

Researchers testing levels of NAD+ do not see the long lasting increase of NAD+ in the blood or liver because it is inside cells where it is most needed.[/quote]

The NMN study measured NAD+ in the muscles one hour after NMN supplementation. NAD+ was only raised by 17%, which is the same as in liver. Where did the NAM go?

 

 

Some months ago, you were arguing NMN must convert to NR before entering cells, therefore NR is clearly superior.

 

Now, you say NMN is much faster at making its way into cells to elevate NAD+, but then within 1 hour it somehow just disappears.

 

So now you say NR is superior because it is mostly cycling thru NAM-NAD+ in the liver, and takes hours before it makes it into cells.

 

What do you think happens to any NR that makes it's way into a cell?  Does it convert to NAD+, but then somehow take a different pathway and not disappear?  

 

You think NMN converts to NAD+ and then disappears, but NR converts to NAD+ and does not?

Edited by able, 25 February 2018 - 05:54 PM.

[MikeDC]

[quote name="able" post="842036" timestamp="1519579926"]

[quote name="MikeDC" post="842027" timestamp="1519575401"]

Faulty logic once again.

As you said, NMN is quickly utilized in tissue such as muscles.

It is INSIDE the tissues

It likely DOES recycle to NAM - INSIDE the cells

Researchers testing levels of NAD+ do not see the long lasting increase of NAD+ in the blood or liver because it is inside cells where it is most needed.[/quote]

The NMN study measured NAD+ in the muscles one hour after NMN supplementation. NAD+ was only raised by 17%, which is the same as in liver. Where did the NAM go?[/quote]


Some months ago, you were arguing NMN must convert to NR before entering cells, therefore NR is clearly superior.

Now, you say NMN is much faster at making its way into cells to elevate NAD+, but then within 1 hour it somehow just disappears.

So now you say NR is superior because it is mostly cycling thru NAM-NAD+ in the liver, and takes hours before it makes it into cells.

What do you think happens to any NR that makes it's way into a cell? Does it convert to NAD+, but then somehow take a different pathway and not disappear?

You think NMN converts to NAD+ and then disappears, but NR converts to NAD+ and does not?[/quote]

The recent paper says NMN is absorbed quickly. It still needs to convert to NR to enter cells. If you think most of NMN are converted to NAD+, where is the extra NAD+ from NAM recycling?

[able]

First - by "recent paper" are you referring to the long term NMN supplementation from oct 2016?

 

That  "recent paper"  shows NMN is absorbed AND CONVERTED TO NAD+  very quickly - in tissue.

 

Are you saying that elevation in NAD+ INSIDE THE CELLS is not a good thing?

 

They don't attempt to trace "where it goes" by continuing to monitor NR, NMN, NAM and NAD+ inside the cells, so I'm not going to theorize "where it goes"

 

It's amazing that you think NMN can raise NAD+ inside a cell and it  then somehow has a different pathway than NR that raises NAD+.  

 

In your world:

 

NMN->NR-> NAD+    then it disappears, or causes brain damage

 

           NR -> NAD+  = miracle 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by able, 25 February 2018 - 07:23 PM.

[MikeDC]

First - by "recent paper" are you referring to the long term NMN supplementation from oct 2016?

That "recent paper" shows NMN is absorbed AND CONVERTED TO NAD+ very quickly - in tissue.

Are you saying that elevation in NAD+ INSIDE THE CELLS is not a good thing?

They don't attempt to trace "where it goes" by continuing to monitor NR, NMN, NAM and NAD+ inside the cells, so I'm not going to theorize "where it goes"

It's amazing that you think NMN can raise NAD+ inside a cell and it then somehow has a different pathway than NR that raises NAD+.

In your world:

NMN->NR-> NAD+ then it disappears, or causes brain damage

NR -> NAD+ = miracle

You still don’t get it. After NMN is converted to NR and enters cells and converts to NMN and NAD+, you would expect a large increase in NAM and subsequent production of NAD+ from NAM recycling. The problem is we don’t see it. Is the NAM wasted? Or the NAM is converted to NMN and wasted? From the data we know the recycling is not happening. We don’t know why.

[able]

 

First - by "recent paper" are you referring to the long term NMN supplementation from oct 2016?

That "recent paper" shows NMN is absorbed AND CONVERTED TO NAD+ very quickly - in tissue.

Are you saying that elevation in NAD+ INSIDE THE CELLS is not a good thing?

They don't attempt to trace "where it goes" by continuing to monitor NR, NMN, NAM and NAD+ inside the cells, so I'm not going to theorize "where it goes"

It's amazing that you think NMN can raise NAD+ inside a cell and it then somehow has a different pathway than NR that raises NAD+.

In your world:

NMN->NR-> NAD+ then it disappears, or causes brain damage

NR -> NAD+ = miracle

You still don’t get it. After NMN is converted to NR and enters cells and converts to NMN and NAD+, you would expect a large increase in NAM and subsequent production of NAD+ from NAM recycling. The problem is we don’t see it. Is the NAM wasted? Or the NAM is converted to NMN and wasted? From the data we know the recycling is not happening. We don’t know why.

 

 

 

Please enlighten me.  As you say:

 

NMN -> NR -> NMN -> NAD+

 

How is that NAD+ different than NAD+ that is derived from exogenous NR???

 

NR -> NMN ->  NAD+

 

 

You believe that NAD+ which started as exogenous NR is somehow better than NAD+ which started as exogenous NMN?  

 

IF all of the NMN that makes it into a cell and becomes NAD+ does not continue to be recycled, how would that be ANY different than NR that makes its way into a cell to become NAD+?  

 

I don't believe you have any logic, but are trying to read smoke signals to find some reason NMN is bad.

Edited by able, 25 February 2018 - 07:52 PM.

[ryukenden]

MIikeDC.

I really need to ask the question of how much Chromadex pays you to troll anything to do with NMN?

Yes, it is really annoying. I have to skip those trolling posts mentioning the same thing again and again.

[MikeDC]

Even though I was talking about a spike in NAD+ from Oral NMN, I didn’t Check what is the magnitude of the spike. Look at chart A, NAD+ content in the tissue. The peak occurred at 30 min around 825. The baseline is 725. That is about 14% rise. NAD+ level is about the same at 1 hour. If we assume the peak at 1 hour and 14% rise for 300 mg/kg NMN. The area under the curve is about .28.
For the NR study with 185mg/kg oral dose. Peak is at 6 hours and peak is about 100%.
The area under the curve is 12.
12/.28=42
42x300/185=68

So the efficiency of Oral NR supplementation is 6800% higher
Than NMN.

So the mystery is solved. The reason we didn’t see significant NAM recycling is because the extra NAD+ produced from NMN oral dose is insignificant.

Attached Files

•  98C45F4C-2FC3-4D8E-98AF-C7BABBA63767.jpeg   112.62KB   0 downloads

Edited by MikeDC, 26 February 2018 - 01:06 AM.

[MikeDC]

Now i understand why people are taking massive doses of NMN.
For a 75kg person, you will need to take 1.8g NMN to achieve 14% rise in NAD.
To achieve 40% rise, you will need 5g NMN. This kind of massive dose of NMN is bound to cause issues.

[able]

Even though I was talking about a spike in NAD+ from Oral NMN, I didn’t Check what is the magnitude of the spike. Look at chart A, NAD+ content in the tissue. The peak occurred at 30 min around 825. The baseline is 725. That is about 14% rise. NAD+ level is about the same at 1 hour. If we assume the peak at 1 hour and 14% rise for 300 mg/kg NMN. The area under the curve is about .28.
For the NR study with 185mg/kg oral dose. Peak is at 6 hours and peak is about 100%.
The area under the curve is 12.
12/.28=42
42x300/185=68

So the efficiency of Oral NR supplementation is 6800% higher
Than NMN.

So the mystery is solved. The reason we didn’t see significant NAM recycling is because the extra NAD+ produced from NMN oral dose is insignificant.

 

 

You didn't link or reference the NR study - you mean the Trammel thesis?

 

Are you comparing the increase of NAD+ in MUSCLE  tissue from NMN supplementation vs the increase of NAD+ in the LIVER  from NR supplementation and declaring that apples and oranges comparison proves NR is 6800% more effective???

 

That makes no sense at all.  

 

If you are stuck on increase of NAD+ in the liver,  please go back  to the Trammel thesis and tell us why NR is better, yet NAM is far more effective at raising NAD+ in the liver (per mg).

Edited by able, 26 February 2018 - 02:50 AM.

[MikeDC]

Even though I was talking about a spike in NAD+ from Oral NMN, I didn’t Check what is the magnitude of the spike. Look at chart A, NAD+ content in the tissue. The peak occurred at 30 min around 825. The baseline is 725. That is about 14% rise. NAD+ level is about the same at 1 hour. If we assume the peak at 1 hour and 14% rise for 300 mg/kg NMN. The area under the curve is about .28.
For the NR study with 185mg/kg oral dose. Peak is at 6 hours and peak is about 100%.
The area under the curve is 12.
12/.28=42
42x300/185=68

So the efficiency of Oral NR supplementation is 6800% higher
Than NMN.

So the mystery is solved. The reason we didn’t see significant NAM recycling is because the extra NAD+ produced from NMN oral dose is insignificant.

You didn't link or reference the NR study - you mean the Trammel thesis?

Are you comparing the increase of NAD+ in MUSCLE tissue from NMN supplementation vs the increase of NAD+ in the LIVER from NR supplementation and declaring that apples and oranges comparison proves NR is 6800% more effective???

That makes no sense at all.

If you are stuck on increase of NAD+ in the liver, please go back to the Trammel thesis and tell us why NR is better, yet NAM is far more effective at raising NAD+ in the liver (per mg).

I am comparing liver to liver. NAM is an effective NAD+ precursor. But it is not an effective Sirt1 activator. This is demonstrated by the fact that NAM can cause insulin resistance and NR reduces insulin resistance. Go back and read my previous posts about eNAMPT.

[able]

 

Even though I was talking about a spike in NAD+ from Oral NMN, I didn’t Check what is the magnitude of the spike. Look at chart A, NAD+ content in the tissue. The peak occurred at 30 min around 825. The baseline is 725. That is about 14% rise. NAD+ level is about the same at 1 hour. If we assume the peak at 1 hour and 14% rise for 300 mg/kg NMN. The area under the curve is about .28.
For the NR study with 185mg/kg oral dose. Peak is at 6 hours and peak is about 100%.
The area under the curve is 12.
12/.28=42
42x300/185=68

So the efficiency of Oral NR supplementation is 6800% higher
Than NMN.

So the mystery is solved. The reason we didn’t see significant NAM recycling is because the extra NAD+ produced from NMN oral dose is insignificant.

You didn't link or reference the NR study - you mean the Trammel thesis?

Are you comparing the increase of NAD+ in MUSCLE tissue from NMN supplementation vs the increase of NAD+ in the LIVER from NR supplementation and declaring that apples and oranges comparison proves NR is 6800% more effective???

That makes no sense at all.

If you are stuck on increase of NAD+ in the liver, please go back to the Trammel thesis and tell us why NR is better, yet NAM is far more effective at raising NAD+ in the liver (per mg).

I am comparing liver to liver. NAM is an effective NAD+ precursor. But it is not an effective Sirt1 activator. This is demonstrated by the fact that NAM can cause insulin resistance and NR reduces insulin resistance. Go back and read my previous posts about eNAMPT.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, it's late on a Sunday.  I've been relaxing with a glass of wine.  I really don't feel like digging into your posts to try and discern what you mean.

 

If you have a comparison between 2 studies, can you please link to them and explain what you mean?

 

It is known that NR and NAM are more effective at elevating NAD+ in the liver.  NMN is more quickly metabolized to NAD+ in other cells.

 

But I'm not clear on what you are using to compare the increase in liver NAD+ from NR vs NMN.

 

 

Also, you should email Dr Sinclair to let him know that NR is 6800% more effective than NR, so he and all the researchers investigating NMN are wasting their time.

 

Edited by able, 26 February 2018 - 03:42 AM.

[LawrenceW]

MikeDC

 

You keep cherry picking mouse studies in an attempt to support your claim that NR is better than NMN. I will take you at your word on your claim that you are not paid by Chromadex to troll these boards looking to attack anything that is not NR. Although from your postings you do appear to be a Chromadex shareholder.

 

I on the other hand have no ownership or vested interest in seeing any NR or NMN company succeed.  I am simply searching for the best solution to living a longer and healthier life at the best price. I also am living in the real world and over the years have experimented with numerous options available to us and have tracked the results both anecdotally and with extensive blood tests. I have taken NMN for a combined 15 months in the past 3 years.  I have also taken NR for a 3 month period.

 

Here are my real world findings

 

I am now in month 5 of my current NMN regimen which I began 1 month after stopping the NR. 

NR did not clear up my arthritis at all.  NMN did clear it up and every joint in my body is now pain free.

After 3 months of NR my HgA1c reading was 6.4 and 3 months of NMN later my HgA1c reading had dropped to 5.8.

After 3 months of NR my biological age was 76.  After 3 months of NMN my biological age had dropped to 45.

 

My inflammation markers all improved.

 

C-reactive protein dropped from a post NR 0.9 to 0.49.

Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha dropped from 1.9 to 1.2

Interleukin-6 plasma dropped from 1.2 to 0.9. 

 

My total cholesterol had improved from 167 to 154. My triglycerides had improved from 147 to 108. My LDL/HDL ratio had improved from 3.54 to 2.3. My cardiac risk had always been low, but had dropped from a 1.92 to a 1.26.  (Population average is 3.03 to 5.37). My Testosterone had increased from 247 to 335. 

 

On NMN I lost about 15 pounds of fat and replaced it with about 10 pounds of muscle.

 

Several months into the original regimen of NMN my neighbors were stopping me and commenting that I was looking healthier, younger, more energetic, buff, really good, etc.  One of the more interesting comments was that I was moving like a much younger person. After that comment I focused on my walking mechanics and realized that I was walking with a much straighter posture with shoulders back, chest out and a looser, more fluid and quicker stride as all my joints were more flexible and pain free. Physically, I felt like my body did 20 years earlier.  I had an interesting conversation with a cosmetic surgeon friend who said that he could make a 70-year-old look like a 50-year-old, but he couldn’t make them move like a 50-year-old. I now believe that NMN can make you move like a much younger person.

 

Based on my personal experience with both NMN and NR, I am confident in saying that you are absolutely wrong in your claim that NR is better than NMN.  In my opinion NR is the FIAT of the anti aging world and NMN is the Ferrari.

 

 

 

[MikeDC]

Do a calculation yourself based on the two papers and tell us the answer. You are ignoring facts. Keep using NMN. I am sure it will end well for you.

[LawrenceW]

MikeDC

 

Facts are that anything NR can do, NMN can do better.

[MikeDC]

MikeDC

Facts are that anything NR can do, NMN can do better.

The only oral NMN mice study I can find shows NMN is extremely inefficient NAD+ precursor. Whatever you claim doesn’t count. Don’t know what kind of a scam you are working on.

[LawrenceW]

MikeDC

 

When Debate is Lost, Slander Becomes Tool of the Loser

[scooterboy]

MikeDC

 

You keep cherry picking mouse studies in an attempt to support your claim that NR is better than NMN. I will take you at your word on your claim that you are not paid by Chromadex to troll these boards looking to attack anything that is not NR. Although from your postings you do appear to be a Chromadex shareholder.

 

I on the other hand have no ownership or vested interest in seeing any NR or NMN company succeed.  I am simply searching for the best solution to living a longer and healthier life at the best price. I also am living in the real world and over the years have experimented with numerous options available to us and have tracked the results both anecdotally and with extensive blood tests. I have taken NMN for a combined 15 months in the past 3 years.  I have also taken NR for a 3 month period.

 

Here are my real world findings

 

I am now in month 5 of my current NMN regimen which I began 1 month after stopping the NR. 

NR did not clear up my arthritis at all.  NMN did clear it up and every joint in my body is now pain free.

After 3 months of NR my HgA1c reading was 6.4 and 3 months of NMN later my HgA1c reading had dropped to 5.8.

After 3 months of NR my biological age was 76.  After 3 months of NMN my biological age had dropped to 45.

 

My inflammation markers all improved.

 

C-reactive protein dropped from a post NR 0.9 to 0.49.

Tumor Necrosis Factor Alpha dropped from 1.9 to 1.2

Interleukin-6 plasma dropped from 1.2 to 0.9. 

 

My total cholesterol had improved from 167 to 154. My triglycerides had improved from 147 to 108. My LDL/HDL ratio had improved from 3.54 to 2.3. My cardiac risk had always been low, but had dropped from a 1.92 to a 1.26.  (Population average is 3.03 to 5.37). My Testosterone had increased from 247 to 335. 

 

On NMN I lost about 15 pounds of fat and replaced it with about 10 pounds of muscle.

 

Several months into the original regimen of NMN my neighbors were stopping me and commenting that I was looking healthier, younger, more energetic, buff, really good, etc.  One of the more interesting comments was that I was moving like a much younger person. After that comment I focused on my walking mechanics and realized that I was walking with a much straighter posture with shoulders back, chest out and a looser, more fluid and quicker stride as all my joints were more flexible and pain free. Physically, I felt like my body did 20 years earlier.  I had an interesting conversation with a cosmetic surgeon friend who said that he could make a 70-year-old look like a 50-year-old, but he couldn’t make them move like a 50-year-old. I now believe that NMN can make you move like a much younger person.

 

Based on my personal experience with both NMN and NR, I am confident in saying that you are absolutely wrong in your claim that NR is better than NMN.  In my opinion NR is the FIAT of the anti aging world and NMN is the Ferrari.

 

I was on NR for over a year I have now switched to NMM 250 mg per day under the tongue  and  can tell the difference . I just feel better all  around on NMM . Can you give the dosage per day you are taking to get those results ? 
 

[LawrenceW]

Scooterboy.

 

Sept. 2017 to Dec. 2017 my dose of NMN was 1,700 mg twice per day.  As the blood results were as good as my previous even higher dose, I dropped down to my current 750 mg twice per day. Physically I feel no difference from when I was on the higher doses of NMN.  I am going in for my blood work at the end of March and will find out if this lower dose also works as well as the higher doses did. I will keep everyone here updated with those results.

[MikeDC]

MikeDC

Facts are that anything NR can do, NMN can do better.

The only oral NMN mice study I can find shows NMN is extremely inefficient NAD+ precursor. Whatever you claim doesn’t count. Don’t know what kind of a scam you are working on.

Who lost? I showed the evidence that NMN is extremely less effective in raising NAD+. Please show me a study that says otherwise

[Heisok]

LawrenceW, Thanks for posting your experience, and lab results.

 

I look forward to your next results. Maybe at that time, you can give an update of some sort about how the others are doing?

 

Edited by Heisok, 26 February 2018 - 05:38 PM.

[scooterboy]

Scooterboy.

 

Sept. 2017 to Dec. 2017 my dose of NMN was 1,700 mg twice per day.  As the blood results were as good as my previous even higher dose, I dropped down to my current 750 mg twice per day. Physically I feel no difference from when I was on the higher doses of NMN.  I am going in for my blood work at the end of March and will find out if this lower dose also works as well as the higher doses did. I will keep everyone here updated with those results.

 

Good luck on your 1500mg dose . To much money for me . I am hoping taking 300mg NMM under the tongue will up my dosage level .
 

[LawrenceW]

scooterboy

 

Thanks for your well wishes.  Please keep us posted as to your 300mg experience and results.  Dr. Sinclair is taking 500mg per day orally and claiming to get great results.  Ultimately I believe that there will be 2 doses.  One will be the most cost effective dose where you trade off some percentage loss of benefits for an affordable price.  My gut feel is that dose may be as low as your 300mg, but not much higher than Dr. Sinclair's 500mg dose.  The dose that I am chasing is the maximum benefits dose.  I will continue to reduce my dose until I start to see a drop off of benefits in my blood work. 

[able]

 

Scooterboy.

 

Sept. 2017 to Dec. 2017 my dose of NMN was 1,700 mg twice per day.  As the blood results were as good as my previous even higher dose, I dropped down to my current 750 mg twice per day. Physically I feel no difference from when I was on the higher doses of NMN.  I am going in for my blood work at the end of March and will find out if this lower dose also works as well as the higher doses did. I will keep everyone here updated with those results.

 

Good luck on your 1500mg dose . To much money for me . I am hoping taking 300mg NMM under the tongue will up my dosage level .
 

 

 

Are you emptying capsules under the tongue?  Any I found had significant amount of fillers.  I didn't mind the taste, but is a bit clumsy, and more difficult to dissolve all the filler.  

 

I found the powder with no fillers much easier.  I also followed a tip to mix it with xylitol.  

 

Is supposed to improved absorption, but even if it doesn't taste much better.