Novos Labs is strongly promoting that NMN is better than NR. Is this true? And brain cancer

[ironfist]

Alright, I remember 8 years ago when NR and Niagen and Chromadex were big trends. Everyone was taking NR and there was a large thread on Longecity with people trying all sorts of doses.

Back then, there were discussions of NR vs NMN and folks thought NR was better.

Today it seems that this thinking has gone back to the other side and NMN is better? Or lat least Novos Labs is saying so:

Short post: Is nicotinamide riboside (NR) better than nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN)? - NOVOS

Long post: NMN versus NR supplements | Is NMN better?

This is a categorization of the long post:

- NMN is one step ahead

- NMN seems to demonstrate more impressive effects in studies

- NMN has effects that NR doesn’t have

- Biotech companies focus on NMN, not NR

- Esteemed experts take NMN supplements, not NR

- The closer to NAD+, the stronger the effect?

- NASA and US military prefer NMN, not NR

- NMN is more stable than NR

- Almost all NR is broken down into nicotinamide (NAM) before it reaches tissues



A lot of these seem to use social proof rather than science... Military, Experts, Biotech companies. That's like saying if doctors do something it likely is healthy.



The rest of them, I don't know.

Here's a FAQ with 22 NMN questions: NMN (Nicotinamide Mononucleotide) Archives - NOVOS



OBSERVE: Novos sells an NMN product. So they might say it's better.



Regardless, here's an article saying NAD+ makes brain cancer kill you faster:

Pathway linked to slower aging also fuels brain cancer - Siteman Cancer Center



So should we even take this at all?



DISCLAIMER: I don't know anything about NOVOS except I have been reading their site a lot lately because they have tons of information, yet I am not aware if it is good information or not. I've emailed them a few times with some irritating questions, I'm sure. They've got me researching compounds like Calcium AKG, which I know little about.

 

[RealNeat]

Alright, I remember 8 years ago when NR and Niagen and Chromadex were big trends. Everyone was taking NR and there was a large thread on Longecity with people trying all sorts of doses.

Back then, there were discussions of NR vs NMN and folks thought NR was better.

Today it seems that this thinking has gone back to the other side and NMN is better? Or lat least Novos Labs is saying so:

Short post: Is nicotinamide riboside (NR) better than nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN)? - NOVOS

Long post: NMN versus NR supplements | Is NMN better?

This is a categorization of the long post:

- NMN is one step ahead

- NMN seems to demonstrate more impressive effects in studies

- NMN has effects that NR doesn’t have

- Biotech companies focus on NMN, not NR

- Esteemed experts take NMN supplements, not NR

- The closer to NAD+, the stronger the effect?

- NASA and US military prefer NMN, not NR

- NMN is more stable than NR

- Almost all NR is broken down into nicotinamide (NAM) before it reaches tissues



A lot of these seem to use social proof rather than science... Military, Experts, Biotech companies. That's like saying if doctors do something it likely is healthy.



The rest of them, I don't know.

Here's a FAQ with 22 NMN questions: NMN (Nicotinamide Mononucleotide) Archives - NOVOS



OBSERVE: Novos sells an NMN product. So they might say it's better.



Regardless, here's an article saying NAD+ makes brain cancer kill you faster:

Pathway linked to slower aging also fuels brain cancer - Siteman Cancer Center



So should we even take this at all?



DISCLAIMER: I don't know anything about NOVOS except I have been reading their site a lot lately because they have tons of information, yet I am not aware if it is good information or not. I've emailed them a few times with some irritating questions, I'm sure. They've got me researching compounds like Calcium AKG, which I know little about.

" Albert H. Kim, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of neurological surgery and the senior author on the study. “We didn’t directly demonstrate that taking NAD+ precursors makes tumors grow faster, but one implication of our work is that if you want to take anti-aging NAD+ precursors, you might want to keep in mind that we don’t yet understand all the risks.”

it may be a reductionist way to look at it since the article gives the impression that taking NMN and the like would drive brain cancer but thats not what the article is really saying. Its just that the same pathway is involved. What that means for taking such substances? i dont know.