Peter Attia· MD
I remain unconvinced that oral doses of NR or NMN in commercial supplements are driving up intracellular NAD in physiologically meaningful amounts.
Loading…
Direct evidence is thin. The claim is plausible and aligns with adjacent findings, but there isn't yet a body of high-quality work that would let us call it well-supported on its own terms.
I remain unconvinced that oral doses of NR or NMN in commercial supplements are driving up intracellular NAD in physiologically meaningful amounts.
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.
so with nad we don't know so we're still at the we're basically still in the infancy of knowing where the NR or nmn would be preferentially taken up but it sounds like the mrs studies would would help us understand that
tell the listener the difference between n R and n MN because they're both precursors to nad but there's a there's a subtle difference yeah and I don't know I don't know to explain that really well I don't I don't care that much okay but theory one is slightly more stable than the other right it's a stability issue availability issue but they'll fight that we we don't know which is the better and we don't know which gets to the tissue right yeah M