The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
it seems to me that intravenous administration of nad is also not particularly helpful though it seems quite popular in the that I'm not I haven't seen compelling evidence that giving nad intravenously makes its way into the cell either
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
well it gets into mitochondria because there's a at least if you believe that this literature there's an nad transporter that pulls it into mitochondria but not from the plasma right you'd have to make it into the cell first yeah I haven't seen convincing evidence yet
this idea of giving intravenous nad is at least theoretically interesting because you're putting the molecule of interest directly into the venous system so what's its fate
i think and you may be more up on this than me but that you know it's going to get broken down partially right because there's not clear uptick mechanisms known anyway to get nad from the bloodstream into cells
while oral bioavailability of NID is low the hope is that intravenous nad infusion may bypass that digestive system the problem is that no mammalian nad transporter has been identified and with the exception of the brain and the heart extracellular nad has not been shown to be taken up into tissues