NAD level doesn’t decrease with age

#21

Yes but:

  1. Do we have evidence that practice has changed? If not, we should assume continuity.
  2. Why is the editor-in-chief from a Tier 3 Spanish university?
  3. Knowing the low quality of this journal, why would a serious researcher decide to be published there if they can be published somewhere else? Unless Nutrients is the publisher of last resort if your paper is shit and rejected everywhere else?
#22

I tend to agree with you that this is reason to be especially skeptical of articles from that journal, but I’m also aware to not lean too heavily on appeals to authority and ad hominems - evidence should speak for itself.

Granted that’s becoming harder to do these days, but we are lucky that review is from 2021/2022, before LLMs were generating so much convincing incorrect evidence.

It’s also hard to verify reviews, since you have to essentially repeat the review process in order to thoroughly review the review, but I did go through some of the review’s references, particularly the human ones, while researching, and I didn’t see any results that contradicted the authors’ claims.

Also, in this case, the Nutrients review is more or less lining up with the recent Nature study with 7 cohorts and 32 authors from 4 countries; they are aligned that the story of NAD declining with age is inconsistent at best, non-existent at worst.

1 Like
#23

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I was just taking the opportunity here to be careful about Nutrients, irrespective of the specific article.

1 Like
#24

Thanks for letting me know, I had no idea about it :smiley:

#25