Lifespan extension: separating fact from fiction

Because we all need more takes in our diet:


Great article, thank you for posting.

“the safety profile of NAD precursor supplementation is far from ideal”

“I view the vast majority of the research here as at best an abdication of scientific duty, at worst a moral crime against fellow man”

The author then bases their stance on NR safety from a paper that is hugely flawed. Which is sort of ironic for an article titled “separating fact from fiction”. I think the volume and hyperbole needs to be dialled down on all sides.

I like that the general rule of this forum is not to tell people what to do (although there are significant minority who fail to adhere to this). I get that there is good intention behind much of it but the reality is we have no idea what factors at play with anyone medical, genetic or otherwise so giving recommendations is pretty much limited to:

here’s what worked or did not work for me
here’s some peer reviewed literature that may or may not be of utility

On a positive note I thank the majority here who have sign-posted me to resources that have proved useful.


Thank you. This article is magnificent. I will reread it a few more time but I particularly liked this (see below)…I am redoubling my focus on reducing my supplement stack starting now.

“Additionally, concerns about drug-drug interactions, as well as the fact that known interventions likely target overlapping mechanisms (leading to rapidly diminishing returns if treatments are not carefully selected), are strong motivations to only consider the strongest bodies of evidence rather than adopting a “bucket list” approach. It is better to properly target a small number of known mechanisms in the safest ways possible using highly specific drugs than to take a hundred supplements, each with weak but pleiotropic effects and unknown absorption profiles, and hope that a good outcome is somehow achieved.“