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.
I took these um NR supplements this is what it's um NAD minus a phosphate group is my understanding um and those I took orally I I couldn't tell if I got the same or different effect because I was taking them together um I didn't continue to take them because compared to nmn it was very expensive
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.
NR is more popular because it's cheaper to make. It doesn't have that phosphate which can be expensive to put on the molecule through chemistry. And that's why most people started using NR first in humans and in mouse experiments.
Well, historically, some companies started making NR early on and made it widely available and cheap to researchers, in fact, so cheap, they were giving it away to researchers. So, it became used much more often than NMN.