NAD+NAD+ Too Big to Enter Cell?

User avatar
ALIVEBYNATURE
Posts: 64
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2019 10:33 am

Re: NAD+ Too Big to Enter Cell?

Post by ALIVEBYNATURE » Sun Feb 16, 2020 3:26 pm

ProudDaddy wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:35 pm
Wikipedia, sometimes correct, states that cx43 is detected in MOST cell types, including heart muscle cells. Here's my point again: Sinclair may be misleading us. I use intranasal NAD+ and consider it the most efficacious for the money. But if Sinclair is correct, then I and other NAD+ customers are wasting our money.
I don't believe Dr Sinclair is being disingenious on purpose, maybe just a bit sloppy in his phrasing. He has said in many interviews that they don't know all the pathways. He favors NMN, but doesn't say outright that NAD+ doesnt work or that you are wasting your money.

But there is a strange bias in the scientific community, and it is not at all uncommon for scientists to reach the wrong conclusion.

They have known for decades that NAD+ was mostly digested in GI tract. NR and NMN seemed a good way to use the precursors to increase NAD+, and much research was done and a lot of energy invested.

It turns out NR and NMN are also mostly digested in stomach and little escapes the liver, so they don't have a clear advantage on bioavailability. So they look downstream, and say they are more accessible to cells. But several studies out this year show that is not so.

However, corporations and researchers have invested time and money, and are sometimes slow to change.

Although the bias against NAD+ in favor of NR/NAM still remains, there has been much research showing efficacy with NAD+.

I would point out that research with NR always looks at the increase levels of NAD+ in the bloodstream as proof of effectiveness.

Dr Brenner and Chromadex point to the study on effect on pups from NR supplements given to nursing mothers. NR was not in the bloodstream or milk. Dr Brenner says the benefit was solely from increasing NAD+ levels in the blood. If NAD+ was not useful, why is it the mechanism for the benefit found in this study?

https://alivebynature.com/does-dr-brenner-make-the-case-for-sublingual-nad-supplements-in-natalie-eva-marie-podcast/

We post reviews of many studies showing efficacy of NAD+ supplements. Many show effect at dosages far smaller than with NR and NMN.


rhett
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:39 pm

Re: NAD+ Too Big to Enter Cell?

Post by rhett » Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:43 pm

I will just admit that I'm completely confused. Why did the precursors even get developed if straight NAD+ worked all along?
Newage
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2019 10:22 pm

Re: NAD+ Too Big to Enter Cell?

Post by Newage » Sun Feb 16, 2020 5:07 pm

rhett wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:43 pm
I will just admit that I'm completely confused. Why did the precursors even get developed if straight NAD+ worked all along?
Because we are in the early stages of the use of these molecules I think there is going to be a certain amount of confusion on a daily basis at some level.
I personally approach product use and dosage by noting the scientific input but ultimately going with my gut feeling and also the way the body reacts to the supplements. As we are all different, you yourself will always be the best judge...
Drdavid
Posts: 710
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:59 am

Re: NAD+ Too Big to Enter Cell?

Post by Drdavid » Mon Feb 17, 2020 7:15 am

rhett wrote:
Sun Feb 16, 2020 4:43 pm
I will just admit that I'm completely confused. Why did the precursors even get developed if straight NAD+ worked all along?
Confusion is the norm when you are in this arena of a new product being developed. There are many companies hoping to find the holy grail of longevity. That means that multiple pathways are being explored in the hopes to find the right one. I have been using NAD+ intravenous for years and can say it has tremendous health effects. I have treated thousands of people and have seen some amazing results. However, the science is new and the data is so diverse the real conclusions have not been able to be drawn. As human studies become the norm and the data begins to accumulate we will be able to make some scientific conclusions. Until then it will be a clinical guide and that is what we have attempted to provide our patients. Since becoming involved with the Alive By Nature products we can say that many of the results achieved by the oral products are almost identical to the IV results. Impressive? Yes because the ABN products can be used anywhere by anyone. Now millions can have access to products that may alter their lives.
The precursors have shown different effects than the NAD+. We see improved strength, stamina and body fat loss with the NMN. The one side effect that seems common with NMN is alteration in sleep patterns if taken to late in the day. We have also found that those suffering from anxiety have a difficult time taking NMN.
In conclusion I will say repeat what I have said in many posts, "determine the goals you want to see and then design your regimen to reach those goals"
Everyone is different and the mg dosing will be different based on desired outcomes.
drkris69
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:41 pm

Re: NAD+ Too Big to Enter Cell?

Post by drkris69 » Mon Feb 17, 2020 9:49 am

Great post DrDavid and yes we live in some exciting times and cant wait for more data.
rhett
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2019 1:39 pm

Re: NAD+ Too Big to Enter Cell?

Post by rhett » Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:38 pm

Thanks 🙏 that makes a lot of sense. It’s very cool to see this field developing so quickly.
User avatar
jocko6889
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:35 pm
Location: Tulsa, OK
Contact:

Re: NAD+ Too Big to Enter Cell?

Post by jocko6889 » Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:18 pm

Good points, Drdavid. Multiple pathways and molecules are being explored. There is a company that claims their product somehow reinvigorates the salvage pathway so that simple NAM gets upconverted to NAD+, but as is the problem with many of these claims they are thin on actual evidence.
Drdavid
Posts: 710
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:59 am

Re: NAD+ Too Big to Enter Cell?

Post by Drdavid » Tue Feb 18, 2020 7:18 am

jocko6889 wrote:
Mon Feb 17, 2020 1:18 pm
Good points, Drdavid. Multiple pathways and molecules are being explored. There is a company that claims their product somehow reinvigorates the salvage pathway so that simple NAM gets upconverted to NAD+, but as is the problem with many of these claims they are thin on actual evidence.
You are correct. Many of companies take a small part of research and make major claims. I have seen that ABN actually attempts to use research when it is available and is working to provide more human data. The thing that I can say it that NAD+ IV provides rapid health benefits and I have seen that in thousands of patients. Using NAD+ by mouth has provided some very good results in the clinic. I hope the new delivery system will provide a great amount of product actually being absorbed by the mucosa. This will allow for better results.
drkris69
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2019 2:41 pm

Re: NAD+ Too Big to Enter Cell?

Post by drkris69 » Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:52 am

It will be nice when we have a way to measure NAD levels in the blood just to make sure we are at optimal levels. Is there a blood test (panel) out there now? I dont think so not as of yet.
Boxcost
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:40 pm

Re: NAD+ Too Big to Enter Cell?

Post by Boxcost » Tue Feb 18, 2020 2:46 pm

drkris69 wrote:
Tue Feb 18, 2020 9:52 am
It will be nice when we have a way to measure NAD levels in the blood just to make sure we are at optimal levels. Is there a blood test (panel) out there now? I dont think so not as of yet.
Check this out, interview with James Clement on mTOR and Autophagy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9SQjWxWMkE&fbclid=

At about 54min (then for about 20min) they start discussing NAD - James is building / tuning a mass spectrometer to test levels in humans!
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic