192 replies to this topic

[ryukenden]

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.

I am going on holidays abroad for few weeks and on return, I am going to buy NMN from US. Planning to try NMN 300 mg plus NR 125 mg. What do you think of the combo?

[stefan_001]

 

 

 

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 ? 
 

 

 

Have you tried NR under your tongue also?

 

[LawrenceW]

ryukenden.

 

You are experimenting with dosage as am I.  While experimenting and to get usable data you must focus on one variable at a time.  By trying both at the same time you will have no idea as to what each one is doing.  If you are dead set on trying the combo I would approach it in the following manner. Take one for a month, take a month off, then try the other for a month, take a month off and then try both for a month. At the end you can compare the 3 data sets and experiences and then decide which regimen is best for you.

[ryukenden]

ryukenden.

You are experimenting with dosage as am I. While experimenting and to get usable data you must focus on one variable at a time. By trying both at the same time you will have no idea as to what each one is doing. If you are dead set on trying the combo I would approach it in the following manner. Take one for a month, take a month off, then try the other for a month, take a month off and then try both for a month. At the end you can compare the 3 data sets and experiences and then decide which regimen is best for you.

Ok, that makes sense. May be I will try 300 mg to 500 mg NMN without NR for few weeks and see how it does.

[able]

 

 

 

 

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 ? 
 

 

 

Have you tried NR under your tongue also?

 

 

 

That seems like a sensible approach to me to get it directly to bloodstream and avoid possible digestion to NAM.

 

I'm a bit surprised/dissapointed that Bryan S and some others abandoned testing NR sublingual.

 

He was concerned with inhaling silica.

 

 I haven't researched how bad that can potentially be, but it doesn't seem that difficult to avoid this when placing a scoop under the tongue.

 

I thought the HPN powder was totally pure - no fillers or excipients?  Their website shows ingredient of NR and Fructooligiosaccarides.

 

I have long considered taking NMN and NR together.  Think I'll try both sublingual.

Edited by able, 26 February 2018 - 09:00 PM.

[Michael]

There is NO study of NR for 12 months.  I believe the longest is 3 months? 

 

I will remind everyone that I pointed out to you previously that the Zhang et al late-life NR survival study  (PMID: 27127236; see analysis here) lasted nearly 10 months.

[able]

 

There is NO study of NR for 12 months.  I believe the longest is 3 months? 

 

I will remind everyone that I pointed out to you previously that the Zhang et al late-life NR survival study  (PMID: 27127236; see analysis here) lasted nearly 10 months.

 

 

 

Good point Michael.

 

As you said  in that earlier post, the Zhang  study briefly mentioned in the appendix  some info on the impact of life-span over 10 months.

 

It shows a lot of good results over 6 weeks.

 

But it doesn't show results of any testing over the 10 months.

 

It shows NR has some positive impact on lifespan and didn't cause noticeable side effects, and that is about it.

 

It is  nothing like the data shown from the 12 month study of NMN supplementation.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by able, 26 February 2018 - 10:46 PM.

[MikeDC]

There is NO study of NR for 12 months. I believe the longest is 3 months?

I will remind everyone that I pointed out to you previously that the Zhang et al late-life NR survival study (PMID: 27127236; see analysis here) lasted nearly 10 months.

Good point Michael.

As you said in that earlier post, the Zhang study briefly mentioned in the appendix some info on the impact of life-span over 10 months.

But as far as I can tell, it doesn't show anything about the impact on NAD+ levels or any metabolic health parameters.

I believe it shows NR has some positive impact on lifespan and didn't cause noticeable side effects, and that is about it.

It is nothing like the data shown from the 12 month study of NMN supplementation.

Why didn’t the 12 month study report life span? The end point is close to end of life. They could have waited a few more months and report the impact on life span. It reported significant down regulation of Sirt1 in the brain which is a big problem. The NAD+ increase from NMN supplementation is undetectable. The efficiency of NMN as a NAD+ precursor is extremely poor.

Edited by MikeDC, 26 February 2018 - 10:42 PM.

[able]

 

 

 

There is NO study of NR for 12 months. I believe the longest is 3 months?

I will remind everyone that I pointed out to you previously that the Zhang et al late-life NR survival study (PMID: 27127236; see analysis here) lasted nearly 10 months.

Good point Michael.

As you said in that earlier post, the Zhang study briefly mentioned in the appendix some info on the impact of life-span over 10 months.

But as far as I can tell, it doesn't show anything about the impact on NAD+ levels or any metabolic health parameters.

I believe it shows NR has some positive impact on lifespan and didn't cause noticeable side effects, and that is about it.

It is nothing like the data shown from the 12 month study of NMN supplementation.

Why didn’t the 12 month study report life span? The end point is close to end of life. They could have waited a few more months and report the impact on life span. It reported significant down regulation of Sirt1 in the brain which is a big problem. The NAD+ increase from NMN supplementation is undetectable. The efficiency of NMN as a NAD+ precursor is extremely poor.

 

 

 

Yes, it would be a lot better if they continued tracking a few more months.  

 

I'm sure we could find things in every single study that we would like to change in hindsight.

 

I wish the Trammell thesis had tested NMN effect on Liver NAD+, along with NAM,NA,Trypt, and NR.  Seems obvious they should have done that, doesn't it?

Edited by able, 26 February 2018 - 10:51 PM.

[Michael]

 

 

There is NO study of NR for 12 months.  I believe the longest is 3 months? 

 
I will remind everyone that I pointed out to you previously that the Zhang et al late-life NR survival study  (PMID: 27127236; see analysis here) lasted nearly 10 months.

 

 
Good point Michael.
 
As you said  in that earlier post, the Zhang  study briefly mentioned in the appendix  some info on the impact of life-span over 10 months.

For the record,  the impact on lifespan is discussed in the main body of the text: what you missed in the Supplementary Info was some of the details on how it was carried out, including the duration (though this was actually evident from their Fig. 6 (g)).
 

But as far as I can tell, it doesn't show anything about the impact on NAD+ levels or any metabolic health parameters.

 

It shows a lot of good results over 6 weeks.
 
But it doesn't show results of any testing over the 10 months.
 
It shows NR has some positive impact on lifespan and didn't cause noticeable side effects, and that is about it.
 
It is  nothing like the data shown from the 12 month study of NMN supplementation.

But remember: the whole point of looking at  NAD+ levels or any metabolic "health" (read: function) parameters is in hopes that they might have implications for lifespan! If a supplement boosts your NAD+ levels twofold and your lipid profile and glycemia look like those of a twenty-year-old non-doping Olympian when you're a sedentary, overweight sixty-year-old, but you still drop dead on schedule, you've wasted your money and hassle buying and taking it (especially sublingually) for all the preceding decades.

[able]

 

 

 

But remember: the whole point of looking at  NAD+ levels or any metabolic "health" (read: function) parameters is in hopes that they might have implications for lifespan! If a supplement boosts your NAD+ levels twofold and your lipid profile and glycemia look like those of a twenty-year-old non-doping Olympian when you're a sedentary, overweight sixty-year-old, but you still drop dead on schedule, you've wasted your money and hassle buying and taking it (especially sublingually) for all the preceding decades.

 

 

Agreed.  It is great that lifespan was extended.  I'm surprised a bigger deal is not made of that.

 

Clearly it has a positive impact.

 

I am just saying, they don't measure metabolic parameters over 10 months of supplementation - no info at all.

 

We don't see what impact it has on NAD+, lipids, glucose levels and such.  

 

MikeDc says NMN is superior  based on details in the 12 month NMN study. I'm just saying we don't have those kind of details from any long term NR study.

 

 

 

(I would disagree though, that the whole point of NAD+ is life extension.  If my last 20 years can be lived in greatly improved health, without ANY life extension at all, I would definately not say I wasted my money.)

 

 

Edited by able, 27 February 2018 - 12:25 AM.

[MikeDC]

But remember: the whole point of looking at NAD+ levels or any metabolic "health" (read: function) parameters is in hopes that they might have implications for lifespan! If a supplement boosts your NAD+ levels twofold and your lipid profile and glycemia look like those of a twenty-year-old non-doping Olympian when you're a sedentary, overweight sixty-year-old, but you still drop dead on schedule, you've wasted your money and hassle buying and taking it (especially sublingually) for all the preceding decades.

Agreed. It is great that lifespan was extended. I'm surprised a bigger deal is not made of that.

Clearly it has a positive impact.

I am just saying, they don't measure metabolic parameters over 10 months of supplementation - no info at all.

We don't see what impact it has on NAD+, lipids, glucose levels and such.

MikeDc says NMN is superior based on details in the 12 month NMN study. I'm just saying we don't have those kind of details from any long term NR study.



(I would disagree though, that the whole point of NAD+ is life extension. If my last 20 years can be lived in greatly improved health, without ANY life extension at all, I would definately not say I wasted my money.)

I never said NMN is superior. I said NMN is a very lousy NAD+ precursor. 6400% less effective than NR.

It would be great if someone can post that 10 month long NR study article. It is protected.

We have plenty of human experiences that NR is great to improve lipid and glucose control. We will see these data from clinical trials eventually.

[able]

 

I never said NMN is superior. I said NMN is a very lousy NAD+ precursor. 6400% less effective than NR.

It would be great if someone can post that 10 month long NR study article. It is protected.

We have plenty of human experiences that NR is great to improve lipid and glucose control. We will see these data from clinical trials eventually.

 

 

 

Sorry, I mistyped.  I meant:

 

MikeDc says NR is superior based on details in the 12 month NMN study. I'm just saying we don't have those kind of details from any long term NR study.

Edited by able, 27 February 2018 - 06:54 PM.

[Anthony_Loera]

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.

 

Lawrence,

 

thanks for your post, it is very informative. Just to clear something up about MikeDC, he has told me on the phone that he is a shareholder when I asked him if he worked for Chromadex. So you are correct in that aspect as well.

 

I also have a horse in the race however since my company sells different NAD+ precursors. At this time, I typically don't comment much anymore as i have seen that science can lean one way, then a new study comes out that changes everything.

 

I look forward to seeing more on NR and NMN studies, for now... Maybe in the future, I will like NR more than NMN, but for now, I personally like NMN better and have been pushing lots of labs to consider producing.

 

I hope they do,

 

A

[MikeDC]

I am not cherry picking anything. The only published NMN pharmacodynamics study shows NMN is extremely ineffective NAD+ precursor. Taking NMN at 125mg and 250mg will not raise NAD+ level in liver, muscle and blood at all. It might have some health benefit, but not all the good benefits from a much higher NAD+ levels that NR can provide.

[Slobec]

this is important to avoid complications   http://www.freewebs....cin_therapy.pdf

[TMNMK]

...until we have more data directly comparing the two. 

 

Tada.. (Courtesy of stefan_001, also posted in the sublingual thread):  https://dataspace.pr...0181D_12390.pdf

 

This one could be a game changer on multiple fronts if it is validated by other researchers.

[Nate-2004]

 

...until we have more data directly comparing the two. 

 

Tada.. (Courtesy of stefan_001, also posted in the sublingual thread):  https://dataspace.pr...0181D_12390.pdf

 

This one could be a game changer on multiple fronts if it is validated by other researchers.

 

 

To what part of this very long read are you referring?

[MikeDC]

https://dataspace.pr...0181D_12390.pdf

 

This dissertation is in disagreement with the 2016 NMN study. 2016 NMN study showed NAD+ peaked at 30 min while this dissertation showed NAD+ peaked at 135 mins.

 

NMN is not faster than NR to be utilized from oral administration. NR and NMN are turned to NAD+ in the same time frame.

 

NR generated more NAD+ in liver and muscles than NMN.

 

IV NMN is not utilized in the muscles while IV NR is very effective in generating NAD+ in muscles.

 

NAM has higher normal circulating level than both NR and NMN. NR circulating level is higher than NMN.

 

Most of orally administered NR and NMN are utilized in liver. NR survived first path better than NMN.

 

Both oral NR and NMN plasma concentration peaked at 15 min.

 

50mg/kg dose was used in experiments. This is significantly smaller than previous NMN and NR studies using 300mg/kg  and 185mg/kg.

 

Edited by MikeDC, 20 March 2018 - 11:38 PM.

[Hebbeh]

 

https://dataspace.pr...0181D_12390.pdf

 

.....

 

 

What I read:

 

We found that neither NR or NMN was able to enter the circulation intact in substantial quantities when delivered orally. One remaining challenge is to protect the bond between its nicotinamide and ribose component, to elongate degradation half-lives. We observed that IV administration of either compound results in direct incorporation into NAD, proving that the route of delivery has a profound effect on the ability of these nutraceuticals to reach target tissues.

 

 

Which indicates NR is degraded into and absorbed as nicotinamide and ribose when administered orally.  And when administered as IV, both NR and NMN incorporated into NAD equally.

[MikeDC]

https://dataspace.pr...0181D_12390.pdf

.....

What I read:

We found that neither NR or NMN was able to enter the circulation intact in substantial quantities when delivered orally. One remaining challenge is to protect the bond between its nicotinamide and ribose component, to elongate degradation half-lives. We observed that IV administration of either compound results in direct incorporation into NAD, proving that the route of delivery has a profound effect on the ability of these nutraceuticals to reach target tissues.

Which indicates NR is degraded into and absorbed as nicotinamide and ribose when administered orally. And when administered as IV, both NR and NMN incorporated into NAD equally.

It said both NR and NMN didn’t enter circulation in substantial quantities. Most were converted into NAD+ in the liver. It didn’t say NR were degraded into NAM and Ribose. It also said NR entered into circulation more than NMN. NR also generates more NAD+ in the liver and NMN has no effect on the muscles.
In Summary, NR is better than NMN in almost all aspect.

[MikeDC]

Since clinical trial and user experience show NR is much better than NAM in anti aging effects. There is something that all these mice studies don’t recognize. Clinical results trumps mice study. I am sure eventually scientists will find out why NR is so much more effective than NAM. But in the meantime, we can enjoying the good effects of NR. I believe NMN is also more effective than NAM, just not as good as NR according to this study.
The dissertation also mentioned that NAMPT has a negative feed back loop. So long term administration of NAM will not increase NAD+ as discovered by another recent paper. NR avoids this feedback loop by bypassing NAMPT. If NR is degraded into NAM in the digestive tract, the NAMPT feedback loop still stands and long term administration of NR will not raise NAD+. So far no long term users have reported this.

Edited by MikeDC, 21 March 2018 - 02:59 AM.

[Hebbeh]

both NR and NMN were quickly degraded to NAM in whole mouse blood (t1/2 3min) (Figure 2.7b, Supplementary Figure A4g).

 

 

Examination of tissue NAD labeling indicated some direct assimilation of oral NR and NMN into liver NAD, based on M+2 labeling that made up a minority of the signal, but was nonetheless readily detectable. The active formation of liver NAD from NR and NMN is consistent with both compounds being subject to substantial hepatic first pass metabolism. In contrast, extrahepatic tissues displayed minimal M+2 NAD (Figure 2.7e), suggesting that orally delivered NR and NMN are converted into NAM before reaching the systemic circulation. IV injection of NR or NMN, on the other hand, resulted in substantial M+2 NAD in both liver and kidney. In the brain, we detected only M+1 NAD, indicating a reliance on circulating NAM and suggesting that intact NR and NMN may not cross the blood-brain barrier

 

Who's for IV injection of NR?

[able]

These experiments used a small dose - 1/6 to 1/8 what others have used.  And, were performed in healthy mice that likely had normal NAD+ levels.  So we don’t know how much different the results would be with older, sicker, mice and larger dosages.

 

As hebbeh notes -they did find that most Oral NR and NMN was degraded to NAM before reaching the bloodstream, whereas Injection was much more effective at delivering NR and NMN direct to bloodstream and on to NAD+

 

So I’d agree with others that does seem a vote for sublingual NR/NMN.

 

It does seem NR was more effective at reaching muscle, but I don’t see any other major differences.   

 

One thing they did point out that hasn’t been mentioned is, they believe their results suggest NAD and possible NMN do cross the cell membrane in some tissues, and a transporter for NMN and NAD await discovery:

 

"Importantly, our findings do not exclude the possibility that NMN import and synthesis via NMNAT3 also contribute to the mitochondrial NAD pool. Indeed, Cambronne et al. recently employed a fluorescent biosensor to demonstrate that mitochondrial NAD levels are sensitive to depletion of either NMNAT3 (mitochondrial) or NMNAT2 (Golgi/cytosolic), implying that both NMN and NAD import contribute to the mitochondrial NAD pool.

   

This observation suggests that a mitochondrial transporter for NMN may also await discovery.

In summary, we show that mammalian mitochondria are capable of directly importing NAD.

This finding strongly suggests the existence of an undiscovered transporter in mammalian mitochondria "

Edited by able, 21 March 2018 - 04:50 AM.

[MikeDC]

These experiments used a small dose - 1/6 to 1/8 what others have used. And, were performed in healthy mice that likely had normal NAD+ levels. So we don’t know how much different the results would be with older, sicker, mice and larger dosages.

As hebbeh notes -they did find that most Oral NR and NMN was degraded to NAM before reaching the bloodstream, whereas Injection was much more effective at delivering NR and NMN direct to bloodstream and on to NAD+

So I’d agree with others that does seem a vote for sublingual NR/NMN.

It does seem NR was more effective at reaching muscle, but I don’t see any other major differences.

One thing they did point out that hasn’t been mentioned is, they believe their results suggest NAD and possible NMN do cross the cell membrane in some tissues, and a transporter for NMN and NAD await discovery:

"Importantly, our findings do not exclude the possibility that NMN import and synthesis via NMNAT3 also contribute to the mitochondrial NAD pool. Indeed, Cambronne et al. recently employed a fluorescent biosensor to demonstrate that mitochondrial NAD levels are sensitive to depletion of either NMNAT3 (mitochondrial) or NMNAT2 (Golgi/cytosolic), implying that both NMN and NAD import contribute to the mitochondrial NAD pool.

This observation suggests that a mitochondrial transporter for NMN may also await discovery.
In summary, we show that mammalian mitochondria are capable of directly importing NAD.
This finding strongly suggests the existence of an undiscovered transporter in mammalian mitochondria "

Mitochandria are inside cells. NMN transporters in mitochandria doesn’t help NMN getting into cells.

[MikeDC]

Any ideas why Revgentics sells a bottle of 50mg of NMN for $38, whereas Alive By Nature sells 125 mg for $45 according to able but Amazon sells it for $86, K-to Go 125 mg for $40 and Gene 125 mg for $40?

If NMN turns out to be as effective as NR then Chromodex's patents won't matter, which should push the prices of both NR and NMN over time.

NMN is 31% heavier than NR. So NMN needs to be 31% cheaper than NR.

These experiments used equal amounts of NMN and NR - 50 mg/kg.

These equal amounts had roughly the same effect at elevating NAD+, except in muscle.

Clearly, your fantasy about NR being 6400x more effective at increasing NAD+ did not apply here.

No. The study showed NMN is less effective at raising NAD+ and less bioavailability.than NR. It can be partly explained by the molecular weight difference. It is not my fault that the only previously available NMN pharmacokinetics study showed NMN extremely less Effective than NR. One of these studies is flawed. This is another example of mice studies not reliable. Clinical trials results override any mice studies. Let’s wait for the first human NMN study to be published.

A big flaw of the study is NAD+ level is only followed up to 145 minutes. Previous studies showed NR generated a NAD+ peak 6 hours later. So this study could have shown only less than 20% of the total NAD+ generated. Every study has flaws.

Edited by MikeDC, 21 March 2018 - 11:42 AM.

[stefan_001]

 

Any ideas why Revgentics sells a bottle of 50mg of NMN for $38, whereas Alive By Nature sells 125 mg for $45 according to able but Amazon sells it for $86, K-to Go 125 mg for $40 and Gene 125 mg for $40?

If NMN turns out to be as effective as NR then Chromodex's patents won't matter, which should push the prices of both NR and NMN over time.

NMN is 31% heavier than NR. So NMN needs to be 31% cheaper than NR.

 

 

The study uses a lot of relative graphs but the IV graphs in 2.7 do clearly show a larger relative impact on NAD levels from NR with a big difference for muscle. And if you look at the circulating NAM you could also speculate that more NR gets processed inline with the higher relative NAD levels. Considering that equal amount of NMN and NR were injected and that NMN is heavier that makes sense. But the difference in weight doesnt account for the difference of NAD levels in muscle. In elder people muscle atrophy is an important factor so NR is clearly doing a much much better job there.

 

Overall I would say that NR is double effective at the same dose.

 

[able]

 

 

 

Any ideas why Revgentics sells a bottle of 50mg of NMN for $38, whereas Alive By Nature sells 125 mg for $45 according to able but Amazon sells it for $86, K-to Go 125 mg for $40 and Gene 125 mg for $40?

If NMN turns out to be as effective as NR then Chromodex's patents won't matter, which should push the prices of both NR and NMN over time.

NMN is 31% heavier than NR. So NMN needs to be 31% cheaper than NR.

These experiments used equal amounts of NMN and NR - 50 mg/kg.

These equal amounts had roughly the same effect at elevating NAD+, except in muscle.

Clearly, your fantasy about NR being 6400x more effective at increasing NAD+ did not apply here.

No. The study showed NMN is less effective at raising NAD+ and less bioavailability.than NR. It can be partly explained by the molecular weight difference. It is not my fault that the only previously available NMN pharmacokinetics study showed NMN extremely less Effective than NR. One of these studies is flawed. This is another example of mice studies not reliable. Clinical trials results override any mice studies. Let’s wait for the first human NMN study to be published.

 

 

 

I guess I didn't read the same study as you.  Can you point to where they showed NMN less effective at raising NAD+ (other than muscle) ?

 

I agree, it will be good to get results from the first human studies with NMN, but you didn't have a problem with using mice studies to promote NR before the first human studies in NR came out.

[MikeDC]

Any ideas why Revgentics sells a bottle of 50mg of NMN for $38, whereas Alive By Nature sells 125 mg for $45 according to able but Amazon sells it for $86, K-to Go 125 mg for $40 and Gene 125 mg for $40?

If NMN turns out to be as effective as NR then Chromodex's patents won't matter, which should push the prices of both NR and NMN over time.

NMN is 31% heavier than NR. So NMN needs to be 31% cheaper than NR.

The study uses a lot of relative graphs but the IV graphs in 2.7 do clearly show a larger relative impact on NAD levels from NR with a big difference for muscle. And if you look at the circulating NAM you could also speculate that more NR gets processed inline with the higher relative NAD levels. Considering that equal amount of NMN and NR were injected and that NMN is heavier that makes sense. But the difference in weight doesnt account for the difference of NAD levels in muscle. In elder people muscle atrophy is an important factor so NR is clearly doing a much much better job there.

Overall I would say that NR is double effective at the same dose.

Remember oral NR generate a big peak at 6 hours. This study only measured at the front tail of the peak. So we have to classify this study results not trust worthy. Researchers can be careless when designing experiments.

[able]

 

 

Any ideas why Revgentics sells a bottle of 50mg of NMN for $38, whereas Alive By Nature sells 125 mg for $45 according to able but Amazon sells it for $86, K-to Go 125 mg for $40 and Gene 125 mg for $40?

If NMN turns out to be as effective as NR then Chromodex's patents won't matter, which should push the prices of both NR and NMN over time.

NMN is 31% heavier than NR. So NMN needs to be 31% cheaper than NR.

 

 

The study uses a lot of relative graphs but the IV graphs in 2.7 do clearly show a larger relative impact on NAD levels from NR with a big difference for muscle. And if you look at the circulating NAM you could also speculate that more NR gets processed inline with the higher relative NAD levels. Considering that equal amount of NMN and NR were injected and that NMN is heavier that makes sense. But the difference in weight doesnt account for the difference of NAD levels in muscle. In elder people muscle atrophy is an important factor so NR is clearly doing a much much better job there.

 

Overall I would say that NR is double effective at the same dose.

 

 

 

The charts clearly do not show NR twice as effective at the same dose.  Oral NR shows slightly more effect in liver, while oral NMN shows more in kidney.    

 

As the authors point out, it is in muscle they see a difference.  

 

Obviously, that is important. 

 

But again, this is very small, single dosages in healthy animals, that did cut off at 135 minutes.

 

We don't know what the results will be for humans, or, the larger doses that we are all taking over months.

Edited by able, 21 March 2018 - 12:01 PM.