NAD+ PreserversInfo on recent reports on increasing nad.

User avatar
jocko6889
Posts: 644
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:35 pm
Location: Tulsa, OK

Re: Info on recent reports on increasing nad.

Post by jocko6889 »

zisos wrote: Sat Apr 11, 2020 6:00 am
I agree with you that we must be careful. However, in the end someone has to consider the risks of interventions vs the risk of non-intervensions. Personal goals, age, risk evaluation, risk appetite, available information etc play a role in decision making.
Here are some parameters to take into account:
a) Age:
In one of Sinclair's presentation, he mentioned that NAD+ at age 50 is about half than at age 20. At age 90, there is almost no NAD+ left.
So, at age 50 I might not take the risk of reducing CD38, because most likely it is low. At age 70, my decision might be different (I am now 69). I tend to think that CD38 is much higher than the optimum.
b) Personal Goals:
I personally believe Kurzweil's prediction that "Longevity Escape Velocity" (LEV) might be achievable for most people in about 15 years. So my thinking is as follows:
At age 69, if I do nothing, I expect to live about another 10 years. By making risky (Not reckless) interventions, there is a chance that if I am wrong, I might lose 3 years of life, whereas if I am right, I might gain 5 years of life. This might bring me close to the time of LEV. Even though the probability of that happening is relatively small, the potential gain is so huge, that it allows me to take bigger risks (I.e. potential loss of 3 years vs a potential gain of eternity)
My thinking would be very different if I did not believe that Kurzweil's prediction is plausible. I would certainly be more conservative.
My goal is to live indefinitely. So I am willing to take a higher risk for this very ambitious goal.
c) Risk evaluation:
Blagosklonny said that Not taking rapamycin when over 70 is riskier than driving at excessive speed, drunk, without wearing a seatbelt. Of course, not everyone evaluates risk the same way. In fact, very few people think so. In other words, people that evaluate risk in a different way will come up with different decisions.

To ensure that interventions are not "reckless" we must stay informed. So I appreciate the information that you provided regarding too much inhibition of CD38. I was not aware of it. More good information results in better evaluation of risks.
Boosting NAD+ by suppressing CD38 with supplements like apigenin may not be such a good idea. CD38 is called in to fight inflammation. Think of inflammation as like a building on fire and CD38 like the firemen called in to put out the blaze. By suppressing CD38, you are allowing the blaze to continue and spread to neighboring buildings. It may boost NAD+ but at the expense of making inflammation caused by senescent cells even worse. Better to attack the root cause of inflammation at the source with senolytics like fisetin. Decreasing inflammation will negate the need for excess CD38, boosting NAD+ levels without the unhealthy consequences.


Post Reply Previous topicNext topic