A nutritional supp worth trying

Charmonium

Diamond Member
May 15, 2015
6,622
685
126
No links but easy to find on Amazon. Tru Niagen. It's nicotinamide riboside chloride. That's a precursor to the primary food of your mitochondria (or midichlorians - whichever you prefer, wink) - NAD+ (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide ).

That's all I'm going to say about it because I don't want to contribute to any possible placebo effects. But look both chemicals up and see what you think.

edit: the one thing I will say is that at the recommended dosage, you probably won't notice any immediate effects, but I've taken 4 at a time and at that dose, I think you might have a good chance of seeing some differences. The stuff is way too expensive to take at that dose consistently and I think you probably won't want to.

Moved from OT
admin allisolm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dec 10, 2005
21,800
3,684
126
Might as well set your money on fire. Your body is perfectly capable of making the NAD it needs de novo from amino acids you eat in everyday foods or recycling similar compounds produced in cells into NAD.
 

Charmonium

Diamond Member
May 15, 2015
6,622
685
126
@Brainonska511 you're abso-smurf-ly correct. But supposedly, you produce less of it as you age. Personally, I notice the difference. I probably shouldn't share this since it's not a desirable side effect. But if I take more than a capsule at a time, I tend to start humming to myself - but uncontrollably. Now . . . that sounds like it would be fun but remember the "uncontrollably" part. For the longest time, I assumed it was the Luvox/fluvoxamine (antidepressant and primary treatment for OCD). Until I went from 200 to 300 mg and it stopped. I'd also forgotten to replace the niagen. Started that again and decided I really needed to cut back to just 2 caps per day.
 
Dec 10, 2005
21,800
3,684
126
@Brainonska511 you're abso-smurf-ly correct. But supposedly, you produce less of it as you age. Personally, I notice the difference. I probably shouldn't share this since it's not a desirable side effect. But if I take more than a capsule at a time, I tend to start humming to myself - but uncontrollably. Now . . . that sounds like it would be fun but remember the "uncontrollably" part. For the longest time, I assumed it was the Luvox/fluvoxamine (antidepressant and primary treatment for OCD). Until I went from 200 to 300 mg and it stopped. I'd also forgotten to replace the niagen. Started that again and decided I really needed to cut back to just 2 caps per day.
The placebo effect is real thing and you have a sample size of N=1.

Most supplements for most people are snake oil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: guidryp

Charmonium

Diamond Member
May 15, 2015
6,622
685
126
The placebo effect is real thing and you have a sample size of N=1.

Most supplements for most people are snake oil.
Again, correct. And while I would never swear to the behavioral effects, there have been studies that show an increase in NAD+ on a cellular level. I'd provide some sort of supporting link if I had one handy but you can probably research this more quickly and efficiently than I can.
 

guidryp

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2006
2,051
2,290
136
Might as well set your money on fire. Your body is perfectly capable of making the NAD it needs de novo from amino acids you eat in everyday foods or recycling similar compounds produced in cells into NAD.
Too many people looking for magic bullets.
 

Charmonium

Diamond Member
May 15, 2015
6,622
685
126

Charmonium

Diamond Member
May 15, 2015
6,622
685
126
That's from the internationally recognized science journal (UK) Nature.

edit: did you guys really think I'd try to scam you? Tsk, tsk.
 

guidryp

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2006
2,051
2,290
136
That just says, the supplement increases NAD+, not that it actually did very much other than some less than statistically significant small improvements in BP.

Also:
Study pills, NR standards for metabolite analyses and partial funding support were provided by ChromaDex, Inc.
Maker of patented supplement, pays for study into their supplement, and still has very little positive to report.

People should really stop looking for magic bullets. They also note in the study, that perhaps it might work better for obese subjects eating unhealthy high fat diets.

Maybe next they will do a study with those more unhealthy subjects and actually tease out some kind of marketable benefit, for their expensive patented supplement.

Meanwhile, you could of course just eat less processed food and more fruits and veggies, and you would have much better results for less money, instead of looking for magic bullets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

Charmonium

Diamond Member
May 15, 2015
6,622
685
126
Nature wouldn't have published the study if they had any doubt about its veracity. Nature and Science are the world's leading science journals. They have what you might call a reputation. And as I said, I would never swear to what effects the supplement might have although I did limit that to "behavioral" effects.

Anyway, I'm not here to make converts. If you don't want to try it and think you're subject to the placebo effect, ignore this and continue on. I like to experiment. And btw, I'm vegetarian and get plenty of fruits and veggies.
 

Torn Mind

Diamond Member
Nov 25, 2012
8,526
1,547
126
Sounds like something to take in desperation if other lower hanging fruit is taken and your metrics fail to deliver results on matters like cardiovascular condition. The cost is brutal.

I think the Pritikin diet is suboptimal because what should be avoided are too broad, but it's enough to get results if the sole aim is to improve the condition of cardiovascular system.

And as far as improving mitochondrial metabolism of fats, stearic acid has far more tangible proof that it causes mitochondria to fuse. I eat very low sugar dark chocolate in part due to that information.
 

guidryp

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2006
2,051
2,290
136
Nature wouldn't have published the study if they had any doubt about its veracity.
I never said the study was not up to the standard of other studies (which isn't a high bar). But you have to be aware that funding source does have a tendency to colour study results.

But the study itself doesn't actually say it had any real beneficial effect. If you are linking the study, what beneficial effect are you claiming the study shows. Because I didn't see one that reached statistical significance.

Anyway, I'm not here to make converts. If you don't want to try it and think you're subject to the placebo effect, ignore this and continue on. I like to experiment. And btw, I'm vegetarian and get plenty of fruits and veggies.
According to the study authors, they would expect it to do nothing for you. The healthier and lower fat you eat, the less the potential benefit. This is a supplement they will try to aim at obese people eating the Standard American diet (Donuts, pizza and burgers), as a partial counter to that diet and it's affects.
 
Dec 10, 2005
21,800
3,684
126
Seems like some pretty substantial limitations for that study:

Effectively, only 12 people in each arm completed the trial, and the design itself is likely severely statistically underpowered - they even note the exploratory (read: out endpoints don't really mean anything beyond hypothesis generation); and it's unclear how they control confounding factors like diet - it would be impossible to give them all the same diet for 6 weeks to control that variable.

An exploratory trial underpowered trial using dosages higher than label recommended and uncontrolled for substantial confounding factors... Yeah, not going to out much stock in that. Just because something got peer reviewed and published in a Nature subsidiary (some of which are kind of crappy) doesn't mean it has life changing or even very broadly valid results. Scientific review should mean follow up studies to confirm the results and critical evaluation of the existing work (beyond what the blinded peer review provided). This whole paper is basically going to turn into the asterisk the company cites when promoting their supplement.

Also, here are some of the limitations they put at the end of their discussion, which are white substantial in my scientific view:
Finally, we wish to emphasize certain limitations of this initial trial on chronic NR supplementation in humans. Because the physiological outcomes in this study were designed to be exploratory in nature, the associated statistical inferences for those variables were based on one-sided hypothesis testing and the alpha level was set at a conservative P < 0.006 to account for multiple testing. More targeted studies (e.g., phase-II clinical trials) with fewer outcomes based on two-sided statistical inference are needed to confirm the effects of NR supplementation on SBP and carotid-femoral PWV (aortic stiffness) before moving towards larger-scale (phase-III) clinical trials and any recommendation of NR supplementation for improving these cardiovascular health indicators. It is also important to note that although NR is presently available as a dietary supplement under the trade name NIAGEN® (ChromaDex, Inc.), the dose tested in the present study exceeds the label-recommended dose and should be considered investigational until further work can be performed to confirm the safety and efficacy of higher doses for use by the general population. Lastly, the present study assessed the influence of chronic NR supplementation on healthy middle-aged and older adults, which may have reduced the likelihood of observing greater or, in the case of several outcomes assessed, any improvements in physiological function. Thus, future investigations should include studies on groups with cardio-metabolic diseases, motor deficits, impaired NAD+ metabolism, and/or other disorders to determine the efficacy of NR supplementation for enhancing health status in populations with impaired baseline physiological function.
 

Charmonium

Diamond Member
May 15, 2015
6,622
685
126
Once again. Not trying to convert anyone. Is there evidence for an increase in cellular NAD+. Clearly the answer to that is yes. Have I made any other claims for this? NO.

edit: if you would like to continue to criticise the study, feel free to write the editors of Nature.
 
Last edited:
Dec 10, 2005
21,800
3,684
126
Once again. Not trying to convert anyone. Is there evidence for an increase in cellular NAD+. Clearly the answer to that is yes. Have I made any other claims for this? NO.

edit: if you would like to continue to criticise the study, feel free to write the editors of Nature.
Evidence at cellular level at doses higher than recommended by the manufacturer does not mean evidence at some meaningful, clinical level at a separate, lower dose.

That's why I said you might as well light your money on fire instead of buying into dubious claims made by a manufacturer or from some exploratory endpoints that the study was not powered for.

I don't need to write to Nature to criticize a study. Critical reviewing and discussion of literature is not limited only to the halls of a journal. And I hope anyone coming across this thread would read the thread and understand that they probably don't want to be tossing their money into the trash. They'd be better off investing in a generally better diet and some moderate exercise.
 

Charmonium

Diamond Member
May 15, 2015
6,622
685
126
I don't need to write to Nature to criticize a study. Critical reviewing and discussion of literature is not limited only to the halls of a journal. And I hope anyone coming across this thread would read the thread and understand that they probably don't want to be tossing their money into the trash. They'd be better off investing in a generally better diet and some moderate exercise.
Get back to me when you have evidence to support those claims.
 

Charmonium

Diamond Member
May 15, 2015
6,622
685
126
You don't need contradictory evidence to criticize clearly flawed studies and identifying unsupported conclusions.
And as I said, if you really believe that a study in Nature is no better than some infomercial, you really need to take that up with them.
 
Dec 10, 2005
21,800
3,684
126
And as I said, if you really believe that a study in Nature is no better than some infomercial, you really need to take that up with them.
The issue isn't the cellular data that was collected. The issue is drawing sweeping conclusions about physiological effects that would justify taking such supplements. The study was not statistically powered to examine physiological effects (and they even acknowledge this in their discussion). The exploratory endpoints that examined those physiological effects are useful only for hypothesis generation and that's why they suggest the need for future, larger studies to look at those effects.

TLDR: the study does not support physiological effects for this supplement and the available evidence to support taking these supplements for better health is extremely thin and of very low quality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: guidryp

guidryp

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2006
2,051
2,290
136
Get back to me when you have evidence to support those claims.
Even the study you keep defending does that.

The study showed no health benefits.

The benefits of healthy eating and exercise are widely demonstrated.

I don't understand why you keep touting a study, that shows the supplement does NOTHING for any health marker.

It's a bunch of goose eggs:
We also observed a trend towards a reduction in the mean carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) with NR supplementation ... However, this reduction was not statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons.
No effect of NR was observed on ultrasound-determined carotid artery compliance (Fig. 4c) or brachial artery flow-mediated dilation, a measure of vascular endothelial function (Fig. 4d).
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
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
So far it's a big nothing burger... Even in the supplement company funded study.

They will need more studies to find some marketing fodder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brainonska511

Charmonium

Diamond Member
May 15, 2015
6,622
685
126
The issue isn't the cellular data that was collected. The issue is drawing sweeping conclusions about physiological effects that would justify taking such supplements
I don't understand why you keep touting a study, that shows the supplement does NOTHING for any health marker.
I don't mean to be rude, but don't you people read? Have I made any claims of any kind beyond what I previously stated. No. Don't put words in my mouth if you please.

As for the motivation behind taking such a supplement, the reason should be obvious. Mitochondria are the so-called powerhouse of each and every cell in your body. Continuously producing the ATP you need to live. Now, can we conclude that an increase in their food supply will be beneficial in a variety of as yet to be determined ways. No. That's why I said I like to experiment. If you'd rather not experiment, that's certainly your prerogative.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY