Talk:Nicotinamide mononucleotide

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Nicotinamide mononucleotide.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chemicals Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemicals, a daughter project of WikiProject Chemistry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chemicals. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.ChemicalsWikipedia:WikiProject ChemicalsTemplate:WikiProject Chemicalschemicals articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food sources

It would be great to have more info on the amounts in various food sources. - Rod57 (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legal status

What is its legal status (GRAS? NDI? POM, OTC) in USA and elsewhere ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FDA ban? 165.73.112.52 (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Text previously said that the current FDA ban was due to its use as a recreational drug. This was a misinterpretation of the supporting reference that was given. I have modified to say that this is due its being investigated as a pharmaceutical drug (which the underlying FDA announcement makes clear, quoting the need to protect the commercial interests of the companies investigating it as a pharmaceutical). I've added a link explaining the situation in more detail - it's the clearest explication I can find, but it's from one of the affected companies, so it may be better to give a more neutral reference if anyone can find one (as I understand it, I can't just cite the FDA announcement itself, because it's a primary source). Urilarim (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

User:Wjfox2005 about PMID 29570999..

first added here by an IP address, 47.150.133.178, at 03:29, 26 March 2018
Then you added a press release about that paper at 09:25, 28 March 2018
diff 13:20, 28 March 2018 you restored it with edit note "Linked to peer-reviewed scientific journal article - DO NOT delete.".

So there are around 675 papers in pubmed about NMH. Why should this one, in particular, be cited? (that is a real question, not rhetorical)

On top of that, while the paper is indeed a "peer-reviewed scientific journal article", that is not enough - it is a "primary source" in Wikipedia and we generally don't use them. We generally use secondary sources that provide an overview of a field and we summarize what they say - sources are not examples of the content we write - they are the sources for content we write. Please see WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wjfox2005, here is a list of review papers that are possible candidates for use as references. --Acyclic (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the sources (see 12 and 15) are highly concerning as they appear to be from websites which may be of low scientific veracity or which may have a vested interest in pushing NMN. Science Is My Life (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the 2022 PMID: 35215405 paper is very misleading. In the placebo controlled study, the effects stated in the abstract never go beyond the effects of placebos, and are usually weaker, suggesting paradoxical effects. User:Danstronger, I would suggest that you remove the reference to this paper for this reason. However, I will edit it for now to make this clearer. --Jimadilo (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point; they don't seem to claim there is a statistically significant benefit over placebo. I took it out. Danstronger (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jimadilo, what do you think of this paper? [[1]] They seem to have found that it statistically significantly increases aerobic capacity in amateur runners more than the placebo. Danstronger (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns of very early research state and risks

I've only read a few "popular" articles on the subject, so take my words with a grain of salt.

Currently, the article only includes general info and anti-aging effects, in some languages also an overview of actual anti-aging research. However, it fails to properly mention that NO human studies to date have properly proven the anti-aging effects. Humans aren't mice, after all. What it also fails to mention that potential side-effects haven't been properly studied yet. Some research even suggests that it might increase risk of cancer and boost its growth. Other research suggests it can help combat and prevent some kinds of cancer, but the point still stands.

And the overall point is that NAD research is in its very early stages as of now and there are lots of unknowns. And the article must highlight it very well, so that anyone looking into all those "anti-aging food supplements" is encouraged to consider the risks other than losing money. Evg-zhabotinsky (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing

The reference to

"Best NMN Powdwer (1094-61-7) Manufacturer & Factory". Retrieved 2021-09-18.

is pure marketing pointing to some dubious Chinese manufacturer. LinguistManiac (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User "Areena34" on 10:20, 10 September 2021 and later user "Ameinaa" 09:57, 18 September 2021 tried to inject this advertisement. Possible same entity. LinguistManiac (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]