4 ms·

That sounds like a plausible reason for evolution to have given us lower NAD levels when we're older.

by DennisP 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
evo_9 5y ago
- cpfohl 5y ago
  I have no doubt that you’re making these claims in good faith, but currently the score is 1 citation to 0…
- thelazydogsback 5y ago
  Most things that increase normal cellular growth by stimulating the mtor pathway and IGF production, etc., will also increase abnormal cellular growth - including things like, well, eating - esp. carbs/sugar and protein. It's certainly possible that a marked increase in NAD _could_ increase the growth of certain types of cancers, but I'd think this effect would be swamped by other factors. As for "medical doctors" -- unless the MD in question is a (sports) nutrition specialist, perhaps oncologist, _and_ has graduated in the last few years or spends many hours a week keeping up with research that is accelerating every week, there's a good chance an intelligent consumer of podcasts/blogs/reddit/books is a better source of info on this topic. (Which is why I had to tell my MD why I wanted to take Metforin.) Not knocking MD's - but most simply don't have the time for this sort of thing the way practices are set up now.
- refurb 5y ago
  People posting this are good at developing iPhone apps, why wouldn't they also be good at medical advice???
- DennisP 5y ago
  All I meant was that if higher NAD levels make cancer spread faster, then that suggests a reason why the NAD level decreases as we age. That doesn't imply anything about whether higher NAD levels actually have that effect, and I thought it was reasonably clear from my comment that this was the first I was hearing about it. So...since you claim to be familiar with actual data, I suppose you can link a source or two supporting your claim? The person I replied to linked a paper in Frontiers in Oncology, and presumably its authors and reviewers did "actual real analysis of this data."
inglor_cz 5y ago
For the vast majority of our species' existence, we overwhelmingly died of causes other than cancer, so if there is any evolutionary pressure in this regard, it should be weak. Cancer as a significant cause of death is a Modern Age phenomenon. Also, the mechanism may be more complicated. What if NAD+ levels influence the immune system somehow? (Our first line defence against cancer.) Metabolism isn't a straightforward (A -> B) system at all.
- johncearls 5y ago
  I have to disagree with you on that. There are a great many mechanisms we evolved, most long before we were human, that appear to be anticancer mechanisms. Off the top of my head senescence, apoptosis, and telomeres. The fact we don't all die of cancer earlier is a result of this.

That sounds like a plausible reason for evolution to have given us lower NAD levels when we're older.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

evo_9 5y ago

cpfohl 5y ago
I have no doubt that you’re making these claims in good faith, but currently the score is 1 citation to 0…
thelazydogsback 5y ago
Most things that increase normal cellular growth by stimulating the mtor pathway and IGF production, etc., will also increase abnormal cellular growth - including things like, well, eating - esp. carbs/sugar and protein. It's certainly possible that a marked increase in NAD _could_ increase the growth of certain types of cancers, but I'd think this effect would be swamped by other factors. As for "medical doctors" -- unless the MD in question is a (sports) nutrition specialist, perhaps oncologist, _and_ has graduated in the last few years or spends many hours a week keeping up with research that is accelerating every week, there's a good chance an intelligent consumer of podcasts/blogs/reddit/books is a better source of info on this topic. (Which is why I had to tell my MD why I wanted to take Metforin.) Not knocking MD's - but most simply don't have the time for this sort of thing the way practices are set up now.
refurb 5y ago
People posting this are good at developing iPhone apps, why wouldn't they also be good at medical advice???
DennisP 5y ago
All I meant was that if higher NAD levels make cancer spread faster, then that suggests a reason why the NAD level decreases as we age. That doesn't imply anything about whether higher NAD levels actually have that effect, and I thought it was reasonably clear from my comment that this was the first I was hearing about it. So...since you claim to be familiar with actual data, I suppose you can link a source or two supporting your claim? The person I replied to linked a paper in Frontiers in Oncology, and presumably its authors and reviewers did "actual real analysis of this data."

inglor_cz 5y ago

For the vast majority of our species' existence, we overwhelmingly died of causes other than cancer, so if there is any evolutionary pressure in this regard, it should be weak. Cancer as a significant cause of death is a Modern Age phenomenon. Also, the mechanism may be more complicated. What if NAD+ levels influence the immune system somehow? (Our first line defence against cancer.) Metabolism isn't a straightforward (A -> B) system at all.

johncearls 5y ago
I have to disagree with you on that. There are a great many mechanisms we evolved, most long before we were human, that appear to be anticancer mechanisms. Off the top of my head senescence, apoptosis, and telomeres. The fact we don't all die of cancer earlier is a result of this.