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.
When you give NMN, it contains all three components that the body needs to make NAD. If you give NR or just vitamin B3, which is an even smaller molecule, the body has to find these other components from somewhere else. So where do you get phosphate, well, the body needs it for DNA, it needs it for bones. So high doses of something that requires additional phosphate makes me a little concerned.
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.
what we found through empirical studies, basically, we're looking at which ones work better, my lab and others, including Matt [indistinct], who's at Wash U, who treated a mitochondrial disorder and we were treating regular mice on treadmills. We found that NMN just worked better at the same dose. We don't actually understand why it could be that this phosphate addition is one of the reasons, but, you know, just based on observations in our hands and in others, NMN works better than NR.
NMN can't because NMN already has a phosphate. That phosphate has to be put on inside of cells. So if someone takes if someone is able to find a safe pure form of NMN um which you're if you're at a drug company that is making and testing NMN you could have access to that. Most of us wouldn't have access to that but if you could find a safe um form of NMN and take it orally that NMN is being converted back to NR before it gets into cells.