The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
And we have compared to NMN and NR head-to-head in mouse studies, for instance in NMN, we've shown in a cell paper a few years ago, makes mice run further, old mice can run 50% further 'cause they had better blood flow, better energy. NR are at the same dose, did not do that. In fact, it had no effect.
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.
We never put our NMN-treated mice on racing bikes, but they did run 1.5X further.
So David has come up with his own products, but he's also done something even more amazing. He's partnered up with a group called EdenRoc, and this group... Well, let me first tell you, NMN, if you take an old mouse, meaning like a 70 year old equivalent as a human is about a 24 month mouse, as I'm sure you know, and you put them on, you know, a running platform, they can go maximum of a quarter of a kilometer. But a young, powerful mouse can do four times as much, a full kilometer. Well, 14 days on NMN, and now the NAD gets in because the absorption is about 30%. And that same animal that's equivalent of seven year old animal will run two to three kilometers, 200 to 300% more than the younger, strongest animals.