Rhonda Patrick· PhD
So if there were I'm going to ask you this like final question. If a listener does come up to you and
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.
So if there were I'm going to ask you this like final question. If a listener does come up to you and
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.
Sourcing is probably the biggest safety issue, right? Because if the material is the same material that has been clinically tested, then you have some, you know, basis for feeling that you can take it as a as a human, right? Um, if it just has the same chemical name, like if it's you read some study about NMN being done in a hospital in Boston or Tokyo or something like that and then you go on Amazon and you buy NN, you're probably not using the same material that was tested in that hospital, right? And there's really no telling what's in it. So I think that um the source is really really important in terms of what people are taking.
This material has been safety tested up to um 3 g per day in certain populations. Um I don't think that people should really um go beyond that.