192 replies to this topic

[stefan_001]

We will see, my view is that duration of trials needs to be much longer than weeks. Now we have results of trials in human that are some equal duration in mice. Its too short. 

 

This one was quite encouraging, 6 weeks NR only. Would have been intersting what it would be after 1 year:

Additionally, our exploratory analyses of the effects of NR supplementation on physiological function suggest that the ability of NR to reduce SBP and aortic stiffness, two clinically important risk indicators of cardiovascular function and health, are among the most promising hypotheses to test in a future larger-scale clinical trial, particularly in individuals with above-normal baseline SBP.

https://www.nature.c...4386.1525824000

 

[Fredrik]

This one was quite encouraging, 6 weeks NR only. Would have been intersting what it would be after 1 year:

Additionally, our exploratory analyses of the effects of NR supplementation on physiological function suggest that the ability of NR to reduce SBP and aortic stiffness, two clinically important risk indicators of cardiovascular function and health, are among the most promising hypotheses to test in a future larger-scale clinical trial, particularly in individuals with above-normal baseline SBP.

https://www.nature.c...4386.1525824000

 

Quite encouraging?

 

That trial showed NO effects of nicotinamide riboside in humans on any of the following:

 

• No effects of NR on energy intake
• energy expenditure
• oxidative fuel source
• physical activity patterns
• body mass
• BMI
• percent body fat
• glucose regulation
• insulin
• motor function
• maximal exercise capacity (V02max) or any markers of submaximal performance

 

My underlining:

 

Total energy intake and expenditure, oxidative fuel source (carbohydrate vs. fat), and physical activity patterns were not affected by NR (Supplementary Table 7). Likewise, we observed no difference in body mass, body mass index (BMI) or percent body fat compared with the placebo arm (Supplementary Table 7) and no differences were observed in measures of glucose or insulin regulation (Supplementary Table 7). Finally, there was no effect of the intervention on overall motor function (Supplementary Figure 2), maximal exercise capacity, as assessed by VO2 max and treadmill time to exhaustion (Supplementary Figure 1A, B), or on markers of submaximal exercise performance (Supplementary Figure 1C−F).

 

Martens CR, Denman BA, Mazzo MR, Armstrong ML, Reisdorph N, McQueen MB, Chonchol M, Seals DR.

Chronic nicotinamide riboside supplementation is well-tolerated and elevates NAD+ in healthy middle-aged and older adults. Nature communications. 2018 Mar 29;9(1):1286.

Edited by Fredrik, 11 January 2019 - 03:46 PM.

[stefan_001]

@Fredrik Its unrealistic to expect that a compound will have significant anti aging impact in 6 weeks.

 

In my view quite encouraging the results I cited, by just swallowing NR cardiovascular health showed improvement instead of continued deterioration.

Edited by stefan_001, 11 January 2019 - 03:18 PM.

[Fredrik]

@stefan_001

 

I do want to try your rose-colored glasses on, just for once, and see how it feels. ^^

 

I think we should discuss the actual scientific findings on NR/NMN and keep our dreams and wishes for these compounds in a separate thread aptly titled so. 

[stefan_001]

@fredrik, i quoted the findings that were positive. You ignore them and state no results. Guess we are both wearing glasses?

Edited by stefan_001, 11 January 2019 - 04:57 PM.

[Fredrik]

@stefan

 

Both human studies in large were unimpressive. You left out the laundry list of things that NR did not affect at all. No need for me to rehash the same stats as you selectively posted. So I posted the rest of the results so we can get a more balanced view instead of this spin on disappointing results. 

 

We will see if the various studies on cognition will have some positive results. I wish for some clinically relevant results but I am not getting my hopes up until the data is published.

[stefan_001]

@fredrik you do what you do but statements as not impressive are yours, subjective and in the eye of the beholder. Very happy there is a vast amount of researchers that are having my view so we can see more study results. Or you think they do that to proof NR doesn't work?

[Fredrik]

@fredrik you do what you do but statements as not impressive are yours, subjective and in the eye of the beholder. Very happy there is a vast amount of researchers that are having my view so we can see more study results. Or you think they do that to proof NR doesn't work?

 

Yes, the word "unimpressive" is my subjective view. The list of health parameters that NR did not improve at all is not. It is just the facts.

 

Researchers should aim for uncovering the truth. The truth can be that NR works well for certain diseases, that it protects against many diseases over time or that the endogenous production and redistribution of compartmentalized NAD is close to optimized in humans with very little room for improvement.

 

Proving that NAD precursors work well in humans is valuable to our scientific knowledge about NAD.

 

Also, proving that NAD precursors do not work well in humans is equally valuable to find out.

 

Or have you just decided that NR/NMN "works" and will look away when facts threaten your view? That will not further anyone's health or longevity.

Edited by Fredrik, 11 January 2019 - 06:17 PM.

[stefan_001]

@fredrik like I said many times you have your view and I have mine including my personal experience of almost 4 years of continuous use and that of others in my vicinity. I would have been surprised to see a change in 6 weeks. You age slowly, you deteriorate over years. That doesn't reverse in weeks. So what you list is acknowledged, I am not debating that at all.Perhaps the problem is your expectation level is different than mine. There aint no miracles making us totally young again and they will not come either. So partial improvement, maintaining youthfullness is the modest miracle I will sign for.

Edited by stefan_001, 11 January 2019 - 07:13 PM.

[Fredrik]

@fredrik like I said many times you have your view and I have mine including my personal experience of almost 4 years of continuous use and that of others in my vicinity.

 

I do not have a fixed view. I look at the published human studies. When they show impressive results I will be impressed. I hope that NAD precursors in humans will prove to be useful.

[Oakman]

...Researchers should aim for uncovering the truth. The truth can be that NR works well for certain diseases, that it protects against many diseases over time or that the endogenous production and redistribution of compartmentalized NAD is close to optimized in humans with very little room for improvement...

 

IMO your summation on NR is pretty spot on... as far as we know, which isn't far. Too bad we don't know more answers, and worse, are we even asking the right questions?

[Harkijn]

Comparing NR with NMN has been a rather divise topic. So this recent review may be interesting for all, because the authors think both probably will have their merits . Apart from that I hope you will agree that this  is a very informative discussion of NMN and NAD+.

 

 biomolecules-09-00034-v4.pdf   1.27MB   34 downloads

Edited by Harkijn, 25 January 2019 - 06:54 PM.

[MikeDC]

NAD+ precursors will not improve blood markers for relative healthy people. The results of Basis on ALS shows when NAD+ is very small, NR can make a huge difference. It can decrease blood pressure when it is higher than normal. It can reduce fatty liver when the fat percentage is high.