Peter Attia· MD
it's actually surprising how little data is is out there
Loading…
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's actually surprising how little data is is out there
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.
the only study I've seen in humans that shows a real benefit of NR was in patients with ALS that had the the patients in the NR group had a a longer time before requiring ventilation than the patients on the placebo.
But what do you make of the fact that there hasn't been any efficacy of NAD supplementation or even NAD precursors? So NR and NMN have really not yielded any meaningful or measurable benefits. The only thing I've ever seen that looked >> somewhat positive was in the trial that looked at patients with ALS and you saw a slightly shorter time to ventilator use with an NR >> uh formulation.
Mechanistically, it’s plausible. But in controlled human trials, we don’t yet have strong evidence.