ND should implement a ubiquitous liposomal delivery system

Everyone is a charlatan today, it seems. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't both have unique benefits from each other? Why can't we all just try to objectively look at the science and change our stance with evidence? It just seems crazy to me. Like let's say that one of these companies selling liposomal shit brought me SEM/TEM and DLS data showing their shit was real. I would immediately change my tune on them. All I ask is for evidence. All I ask is for companies making money off people to put in the scientific legwork to prove things are right BEFORE they sell to customers. It's really not a big ask. Imagine constructing a building before you had a sign-off from a structural engineer that it was safe... Everyone would be up in arms over it, and run that construction company out of business. Yet almost every single supplement company out there just brings out random untested shit that consumers then ingest into their bodies! Like to me this is just as bad as a construction company making a building without structural engineers ensuring it is safe. It's on the same level in my mind, yet consumers do not treat it anywhere near the same. If you learned a building was not signed off by a structural engineer first, would you go in it? Would you take an elevator to the top floor of it? Hello no! However, I have yelled and screamed for years about shitty brands like Bulk Supplements, Toniiq, Double Wood, etc. not properly testing. However, people still flock to them because of marketing and price. Just fucking crazy to me. Even in the end if one of their supplements by chance turns out to be what they claim, unless they prove it with validated science ahead of time, it's STILL BAD! Being right by chance isn't good enough. They are mostly wrong, based on our testing, though. Do you know how many things we have tested from those brands that have failed? It's insane.

On the NMN and NR thing, both have their advantages and disadvantages. The problem with NR is that it needs to convert to NMN to become NAD+. Most of the time it actually has to convert to NAM (1-Nicotinamide) first, then convert to NMN. Well your NAMPT (nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase) enzyme is what accomplishes the conversion from NAM to NMN, and that enzyme falls as you age. So older people that are taking NR still have the issue of not enough NAMPT activity to create NMN from the NR they take. This is why taking NMN is better for those people, on top of the direct transporter in the small intestine. NR can directly convert to NMN through the NRK1 (nicotinamide riboside kinase 1) and NRK2 (nicotinamide riboside kinase 2) salvage pathway, but that goes both ways. NMN can actually convert back to NR through that pathway. Only some of an NR dose goes through the NRK1,2 pathway to become NMN, to then convert to NAD+ through NMNAT1-3 (nicotinamide mononucleotide adenylyltransferase 1-3). A lot of it actually goes back through the NAM pathway, which keeps that rate-limiting enzyme of NAMPT in play. So why would anyone take NR? Just take NMN and call it a day, right? Well no, because NR does seem better suited to reaching different parts of the body than NMN. It also seems to have direct positive effects in some areas. For a complex cycle like NAD+, taking only one part of the cycle usually is never the right answer.

Look at the NAD+ cycle.

It is super complex, and we can't simply say X part of it is the only thing you should focus on. This is why we offer both NMN and NR now, and will be offering other NAD+ precursors soon. It's also why we are working on an optimized NAD+ stack for Natrium. Hitting just one part isn't optimum. The idea that only one part of this cycle matters, and that every other part is useless, just doesn't fit the science. It's why you start to see cracks in the messaging from these companies. They are trying so hard to make people think that only their supplement is worthwhile, and the BS shows through.