Talk:Nicotinamide riboside

sourcing
It is not valid to have content like this:

NR was discovered as a human vitamin precursor of NAD+ in 2004 and as a sirtuin-activating compound in 2007 by Charles Brenner.

We cannot site the 2004 paper for the claim that the 2004 paper was the first X; we need an independent source that says this. It is WP:OR to do this and almost the whole article is sourced this way.

I will fix it but it will take some time. Jytdog (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Safety
User:Acyclic -- about this and especially this, safety of a compound is absolutely WP:Biomedical information and needs to be sourced per WP:MEDRS. If you don't understand MEDRS please ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * But it is erring on the side of safety, not of ignorance. It is markedly different from a claim of health benefits. There is no profound logic that I see in requiring MEDRS for safety data. I imagine you couldn't care less; I'm basically wasting my time. --Acyclic (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No that is not the only reason why we follow MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but how could removing safety data be erring on the side of safety... People risk abusing the substance if they don't find a suggested UL like the conservative one I had added.
 * Anyhow, I suspect I can use the GRAS to add at least the LOAEL and NOEAL, since the GRAS does mention them, and so it qualifies as a secondary source for the same. Does it not? Here is the reference with quote:
 * --Acyclic (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * something like that, sourced to the GRAS notice, is fine Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * something like that, sourced to the GRAS notice, is fine Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Is there an issue with having the following in the article? It is sourced from the GRAS as well, and was removed.


 * No clinically adverse effects on hematology, clinical chemistry, urinalysis or liver or kidney function parameters were noted in a 2016 pharmacokinetics study of single doses of 100, 300 and 1000 mg of nicotinamide riboside chloride in humans.

--Acyclic (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've re-ordered per WP:MEDMOS. The GRAS notice is sufficient for discussing tox etc; single dose studies are not worth discussing in WP. Jytdog (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Also known as Niagen
See: https://draxe.com/nutrition/nicotinamide-riboside/

Vagueness, puffery in history
The part of the research section discussing recent clinical evaluations is extremely vague and uses weasel words to avoid specific (or, likely, accurate) discussion of the research. “In recent years” (when?), “has been of great interest” (to who?), “Numerous animal and human studies” (how many, what kind, and funded by whom?). It seems like a sales pitch for unproven and loosely regulated dietary snake oil. 71.123.39.52 (talk) 08:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)