27 Pages
Posted: 11 Apr 2022
A quick Review at;
The biological age change was unimpressive, maxing out at -2.54% after 60 days. Much more impressive was the 50% increase in the distance of a six-minute walk:
The mean percentage increases of the distance walked in six minutes over baselines were -4.56%, 13.88%, 38.10%, and 31.48% at day 30 and 1.60%, 23.64%, 50.18%, and 48.4% at day 60 for placebo, 300mg, 600mg, and 900mg respectively.
It was a double-blinded but small study (80 total participants), so I take it with a grain of salt. Certainly the supplement is worth a try if you feel your energy level has declined a lot with age. I’m not there yet.
Who is going to finance a large study on a compound without a patent?
The study being done by Brad Stanfield, is costing $400,000.00{ that is the amount he is/has raised is raising, his budget.]
Joan Mannick Everolimus study was over $125 million.
The TAME study which involves 3,000 people/subjects is $90 million{the amount Nir Barzilai, has stated.]
Indeed, biological age result essentially meaningless…it takes several months for epigenetics to reprogram the methylome. (private communication with myDNAge…they recommend waiting 6 months). And there are some reproducibility issues with these first age DNA tests.
Haven’t bought into NMN.
I think this estimate is inaccurate (seems high), where did you get this number? ResTOR Bio only had a total funding of approx. $65 Million, and that funding when towards many things besides their clinical trial (e.g. corporate overhead, executive salaries, etc…)
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/restorbio/company_financials
But your point is still true - its very hard to get funding for the larger scale clinical trials on non-patented small molecules / generic drugs…
On the Lloyd Klickstein interview with Peter Attia. #118
Klickstein stated the cost.
Brad Stanfield did a good critical review of this paper, concentrating on the major defect in the blinding (participants knew how many capsules they were taking, and it varied by dosage). Also, there were problems with: (1) how short were the distances initially walked, (2) how much the control group’s bioage changed during the study to be much older, (3) chronological age differences between the control group and intervention groups, (4) sponsorship by a branded NMN manufacturer.
