Talk:Life extension

"Anti-aging hormore therapies" listed at Redirects for discussion

File:Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Anti-aging hormore therapies and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 17#Anti-aging hormore therapies until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Article in Nautilus

I thought this article might be of interest. It discusses the effectiveness of things like nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN), nicotinamide riboside (NR), sirtuins, & resveratrol, as well as controversies surrounding the research, researchers, & commercialization.

Regarding longevity or life extension researchers, this may be something for which we need a category. Peaceray (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not a WP:RS source, so is unusable, but rather is a summary of opinions based on lab research. Sirtuins, resveratrol, and NAD supplementation have no support for efficacy in randomized controlled trials or any WP:MEDASSESS sources.

Here's the ChromaDex website where Brenner is presented and effects of the product, TRU Niagen, are falsely presented as having benefit in humans, something that has never been proven in vivo (if it did, it would be classified and approved as a prescription drug by the FDA).

As a supplement, TRU Niagen brings in $17.6 million per quarter or 78% of total ChromaDex revenues, possibly revealing Brenner's true motivation for being affiliated with a supplement company, if he's getting a decent cut. That product income of about $70 million per year is being earned at the expense of a deceived public.

This presentation of Brenner as a "longevity skeptic" is quite comical, duplicitous, and hypocritical. He has solid academic credentials from a career in lab research, then joins a supplement company with a product (consistent with his research) having no basis for in vivo benefit in humans. What Sinclair, Brenner and other advocates of taking supplements with supposed anti-disease or anti-aging benefits seem to conveniently ignore is that an orally-consumed product - as for any food complex - is subjected to the acidic and enzymatic environment of the stomach, which would dissolve and break apart molecules, leaving only individual derivatives to circulate in the blood with unknown concentrations, tissue targets, or cellular properties. Zefr (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, perhaps I should have been clear I was not suggesting its use for the article. BTW, there is nothing about Nautilus either way at WP:RS/P, so I take issue with automatically branding it as non-WP:RS. That said, it is clear that the only sources that should be used for articles like this is articles that meet WP:MEDRS, which this source is decidedly not. It might well be suitable for citing Brunner's opinions in the article about him.

My main purpose in posting the citation was to stimulate discussion amongst other editors, something I often do to talk pages, especially since it cites primary studies (again, themselves not suitable for citation as WP:MEDRS requires secondary & tertiary sources, but perhaps of interest). It has elicited comment! Thank you Zefr for your critique. Peaceray (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, while I think any medical consensus is further down the road, here is a review of the literature concerning the oral administration of NAD+ boosting compounds.

Peaceray (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)