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.ProudDaddy wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2020 2:35 pmWikipedia, 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.
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?
We post reviews of many studies showing efficacy of NAD+ supplements. Many show effect at dosages far smaller than with NR and NMN.