Why nad+?
It is part of the inner chargeable battery that cycles
between nad+ and nadh.
Why not synthesize nadh directly?
There are no direct reactions of substance. Only nad+ can be
increased, in turn food will charge it to increased nadh. Mind you, the energy
recovery is by unit weight. So either nadh or nad+ has to be synthesized
Why increase nad+ by nature way?
At this point, nature is mimicked. Someday, some bio
scientist-engineers will claim other ways of synthesis and their methods will
have centuries of anti-cancer testing. Till then, the conservative safe way is
to mimic nature!
How increase nad+ by nature way?
We can do it by examining the precursors in various organic
reactions. Also one must consider the
amount delivered. We have to cross the stomach-blood barrier and then the
chemical has to be ingested by the cell. Collectively we call the crossing the
bioavailability.
Why hard?
The cheapest way to increase calcium is to eat chalk. Bad
idea because the chemical may damage the stomach and has negligible bioavailability.
Same is not true of some complex bio-molecules with Ca ion. Even the best have
maximal absorption rates, so there is NO instantaneous way of raising!
How come you know re Ca?
My mother has been diagnosed deficient in Ca, fundamental
cause of osteoporosis. Interesting ways to increase Ca makes sense to me!
How can you improve bioavailability of anything?
No matter what it is, element ion or salt, you can always inject it into the
blood stream directly. Problem is you bypass the stomach-blood filter that
performs two essentials – keep out the impurities and convert it right blood
form. It means that injectable be medical-grade pure and known to be
injectable! An anti-oxidant Glutathione which also disrupts melanin synthesis has
this property and slowly, doctors are opening direct-IV centers that advertise proven
Skin-whitening for girl-marriage with guaranteed whitening for a few months.
Precursors?
There are many to nad+. They require 2 or more steps to
become nad+. Further away you are, lower the effectiveness because of increased
bio-availability issues and increased chances of unintended side effects. All
start with vitamin B3, most have similar pathways to nad+ and similar bad
side-effect profile – in other words safe to high doses . This makes them
perfect goods for semi-intelligents to
be thugged in honest ways. Point is these are all precursors, they can each do
the job, may or may not in reality, discovery is incredible hard, there are plenty
of anecdotal-advice givers and wise-oracles buyable. In other words,
intellectual debates best avoided. What can clear the nonsense are high quality
studies, started for niagen in Japan and metformin in USA, but due in 2020.
Even the need for such studies are a positive sign beyond amazon hype!
NR?
Nam, Na, and Trp (Tryptophan) are advertised, sold but shown
ineffective precursors to nad+. Note that even earlier is B3 (niacin) in two
forms, dangerous flushing niacin and non-flushing niacinamide. Another approach
to non-flushing is time-release version of niacin. All these are as far away as
B3 (First N in most is niacin). Much closer (closest) is NR. The riboside
molecule seems to have better bio-availability for most in conjunction with
exercise (I posit). Note that NR might be essential to motivate oldies to exercise some, in the first place (past
the feeling of enervation!).
It is a good place to bet because Japanese are at least studying it! Best
not bet but wait till 2018,
but only if you can. It is NOT a shame to fall for amazon hype, perhaps. At worst, very good chances are you
wasted money at most.
Metformin?
CDC
in USA studies it. Even
more specialized studies operate. Early mother of investigations was a statistical
study from 2000 + in UK that compared lifespans of metformin alone treated
diabetics M, equivalent free of diabetes F and equivalent insulin treated diabetics I; and found N – 5 >
F > I + 5. Eating metformin seems to do the trick unless equivalency used by
statisticians was bullshit! Started the study in 2016. A Swedish study
pph-poohed renal damage, stating - Conclusions Metformin
showed lower risk than insulin for CVD and all-cause mortality and slightly
lower risk for all-cause mortality compared with other OHA, in these 51 675
patients followed for 4 years. Patients with renal impairment showed no
increased risk of CVD, all-cause mortality or acidosis/serious infection. In
clinical practice, the benefits of metformin use clearly outbalance the risk of
severe side effects.
How evil is sugars?
VERY.
The
United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) set out to examine the effect
of intensified glucose control upon the subsequent development of complications
of diabetes in newly diagnosed patients, and the relative benefits of specific
therapies (diet, sulfonylureas, metformin or insulin) in this regard. It
recruited 5,102 patients from 23 centres between 1977 and 1991. Patients were
followed for an average of 10 years. A blood pressure arm was added in the
course of the study and compared rigorous vs less rigorous blood pressure
control in hypertensive people with diabetes, and the relative benefits of an
ACE inhibitor (captopril) or β-blocker (atenolol) in achieving this. Median
HbA1c was 7.9% on conventional therapy and 7.0% on intensified therapy, and
this was associated with a 25% reduction in the rates of retinopathy,
nephropathy and (possibly) neuropathy. Results were even stronger in the
epidemiological arm (which compared achieved HbA1c rather than treatment arm),
and no glycaemic threshold for complications was observed. There was a
non-significant 16% reduction in myocardial infarction or sudden death with
intensified therapy, and a 25% reduction in the risk of death for every 1% drop
in HbA1c. Antihypertensive therapy markedly reduced all end-points,
microvascular as well as arterial.
WARNING: I AM
no DOCTOR, nor are you. Get encouraged to visit and not appear stupid
No comments:
Post a Comment