NR (nicotinamide riboside) and NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide) supplements are both often touted as two of the most promising ingredients to slow down aging.
NR and NMN are precursors to NAD+ (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide). This means NR and NMN are converted into NAD+.
NAD+ is a very important molecule, having a myriad of effects in our cells, including enabling the proper functioning of sirtuins, enzymes that protect our DNA and regulate the epigenome, and helping PARPs to do their job, which is repairing damaged DNA.
- A decline in metabolism, leading to weight gain and an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome, fatty liver, and other metabolic disorders
- Reduced blood vessel health
- Age-related muscle loss
- Aging-related cognitive decline
- Aging-related eyesight and hearing loss
- Shorter lifespan
Taking NR and NMN increases NAD+ levels. Higher NAD+ levels protect our epigenome and DNA. Increasing NAD+ levels leads to many health benefits on various organs, such as the brain, cardiovascular system, and muscles (R):
Source image: Therapeutic Potential of NAD+-Boosting Molecules: The In Vivo Evidence. Cell Metabolism. Luis Rajman, etc al.
Given that NR and NMN increase NAD+ levels, they are often called NAD boosters. Many studies show that NR and NMN can improve various aging hallmarks, like a dysregulated epigenome, DNA damage, protein accumulation, inflammaging (aging-related inflammation) and various other aging mechanisms.
But the big question of course is: which is best, NMN or NR?
Currently, there are no studies comparing NMN and NR head-on regarding health effects and lifespan effects. However, many aging specialists and researchers believe NMN is better than NR. They quote various reasons for this.
NMN is one step ahead
Compared to NR, NMN is already one step further down the pathway to produce NAD+. The pathway that leads to NAD+ is as follows: NR is converted into NMN, and then NMN is used to build NAD+, or: NR => NMN => NAD+.
NMN is thus one step further down the NAD+ pathway. NR first needs to be phosphorylated to create NMN, which then is built into NAD+. NAD+ is the molecule that enables sirtuins and PARP enzymes to work.
NMN seems to demonstrate more impressive effects in many studies
If you look at the whole of the studies done with NMN and NR, it seems that NMN enables stronger and more diverse effects than NR. The studies done with NMN just seem more impressive. For example, 5-month old mice that received NMN for over a year showed improved insulin sensitivity and lipid metabolism, better vision, increased bone density, improved mitochondrial and metabolic functioning, better weight, and a stronger immune system (R). Old mice that received NMN for 8 weeks improved vascular health considerably, demonstrated by for example decreased artery stiffness and less arterial oxidative stress (R). NMN given to old mice could even restore their fertility again (R). Such improvements for a wide array of aging-related symptoms and diseases seems more typical with NMN than with NR.
NMN has effects in studies that NR doesn’t have
Studies show that NMN can improve various aging symptoms and diseases while NR is not able to do this. For example, NMN has been shown to increase endurance and exercise capacity, up to 80 percent, something that NR couldn’t achieve. To the contrary, one study showed that NR actually reduced physical performance by 35%.
In a mouse Alzheimer model, NMN reduced beta-amyloid accumulation (R), while NR could not reduce the formation of beta-amyloid (it could however improve cognitive function) (R). Accumulation of beta-amyloid proteins is one of the driving forces behind Alzheimer’s disease.
Professor David Sinclair from Harvard University, arguably one of the biggest experts in the world regarding NMN, NR and NAD+ metabolism, discusses in this interview some reasons why NMN could be better than NR.
Esteemed science companies tend to focus more on NMN
Various companies that are developing the next treatments for aging are focusing on NMN, not NR. For example, Life Biosciences’s subsidiary company Jumpstart Fertility focuses mainly on NMN and NNM analogues, not NR, to improve fertility in animals (R).
Metro Biotech is looking into NMN and NMN analogues to improve NAD+ metabolism. In fact, if you look at the patent applications Metro Biotech filed, they patented NMN analogues (containing a phosphate group, as NMN does), not NR analogues (which do not contain a phosphate group):
Source: Google Patents
This seems to indicate that the phosphate group, or the NMN-like structure, is very important.
World experts take NMN AS A SUPPLEMENT, not NR
Professor David Sinclair from Harvard University is one of the leading longevity researchers in the world who has spent decades researching NR, NMN and NAD+. He takes NMN himself, not NR (R).
The closer to NAD+, the stronger the effect?
NA (nicotinamide) is converted into NR, which is converted into NMN, which then builds up NAD+. NA has been shown not to extend lifespan (it however could improve health span) (R). In contrast to NA, NR could improve lifespan according to one study (R). Some scientists believe that the further down the NAD+ pathway you go, the more powerful the effects get. This is an educated guess of course. Ideally, we need head-to-head comparison studies between NR and NMN on lifespan. Until now, such studies have not been conducted.
NASA prefers NMN SUPPLEMENTS, not NR SUPPLEMENTS
NASA is exploring NMN to see if it can prevent muscle atrophy (the dwindling away of muscles) in astronauts, and if NMN can protect their DNA against cosmic radiation. This would be especially important for a mission to Mars, during which astronauts will be in zero-gravity conditions and exposed to DNA-damaging cosmic radiations for years while traveling to the red planet. It’s interesting to see that NASA is mainly looking into NMN, not NR.
NMN is more stable than NR
NMN can activate SIRT3
NMN activates SIRT3 (R), while NR seems not to be able to activate SIRT3 (R). There exist 7 different sirtuins, and they have various different effects in the cell. Some sirtuins are active only in the cell nucleus, others in the mitochondria, while others are active in the cytoplasm. The more a substance can activate different sirtuins, the better.
Opinions are overly skewed towards NR SUPPLEMENTS, not always for the best reasons
Many websites and people promote NR, not NMN. There is a lot of hype around NR. Why is this, especially given scientific studies seem to suggest, and various experts believe, that NMN is better than NR?
First of all, NR is much cheaper and easier to manufacture than NMN. That is why most experiments have been done with NR and not with NMN. Only recently has NMN been able to be produced more economically, but it is still very expensive. So most studies have been done with NR, and that is why NR has become more famous than NMN. As Dr. Imtias Mehedi summarizes it:
“The high manufacturing cost of NMN causes an increase in the ultimate price that creates a burden from the patients’ perspective. Despite having these drawbacks, NMN could still be a potential chemical entity, to be used as a therapeutic agent in Alzheimer’s, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases. Some capsule formulations of NMN is already available in the market. With advanced clinical studies along with the exploration of newer pharmacological applications, NMN could be an ‘all-in-one’ intervention strategy, transpiring a new era of therapeutic approach in medical science.”
Secondly, the production process of NR is patented. This means that only very few companies can make NR. Companies that own patents and licenses on NR can make a lot of money. That is why a lot of research into NR has been funded by these companies. In contrast, NMN is not patented. Everyone can make it. Given the monetary vested interests, many companies tout NR, while downplaying NMN.
Additionally, many scientists do not openly want to say that NMN could be better than NR, because they previously have done research on NR, and don’t want to discredit their findings, or their patents on NR.
NMN taken orally is also absorbed
Don’t believe the still widespread claims that NMN cannot be orally absorbed, or that it is far less well absorbed than NR, or that you have to take NMN sublingually. Often, these outdated claims are made by sellers of NR, who want to push their NR products. Or, by NMN sublingual tablet manufacturers who are looking for an edge with a distinct product, but not basing their claims on solid, NMN-specific studies. NMN studies have clearly demonstrated that NMN can be readily absorbed when taken by mouth.
A study in which NMN was administered orally to humans showed that NMN is absorbed, given various metabolites of NMN were found in the blood, showing that NMN was absorbed and metabolized (R).
Various companies that develop treatments for aging administer NMN orally in their trials.
A brief word about cellular uptake of NMN. Until recently the general idea was that NMN could not be directly taken up by cells. NMN first needed to be converted into NR in order to be taken up by the cells. Recent research however shows that NMN can be taken up directly by cells, crossing the cell membrane via a specific mechanism (R).
And if you are still not convinced, David Sinclair, a leading NR, NMN and NAD+ researcher from Harvard University takes his NMN powder (not NR) every morning with his yoghurt. He doesn’t inject, nor does he take it sublingually.
Many people who took both NR and NMN claim that NMN supplements have considerably stronger effects than NR supplements.
This can aslo be corroborated by one of the founders of NOVOS, who tried both NR and NMN, and felt more energized with NMN, in fact so much that he had to stop taking NMN in the evening because it left him too energized to fall asleep.
On Amazon, you can find many testimonies from people who tried both NMN and NR supplements, claiming that an NMN supplement works better for them:
“I can feel the increase of energy and am more alive after taking it. NMN is much better than NR.”
“I’ve been taking NR for almost a year now, and recently tried NMN. Hands down, NMN has noticeably outperformed the NR. My afternoon deliveries would be scary sometimes because I would be fighting back the sleepiness. Your NMN product has solved that problem for me. That’s one noticeable area where it clearly does the job for me.”
– Duwayne Howe
“We switched from NR to NMN several months ago and the results were significantly better than those we received using Niagen–for both of us. NMN is the real thing, and we are thrilled to have discovered it. We both have a greater boost in energy, cognitive function, and endurance than we did with Niagen-nicotinamide riboside. “
– Craig R Martin
And what about NAD+ and nicotinamide (NA)?
Given that the whole goal of taking NR and NMN supplements is to increase NAD+ levels, why not take NAD+ itself? The problem is that NAD+ is a large molecule. If you take it orally, it gets broken down in the gut.
Also, even if NAD+ were not broken down by the digestive enzymes, it would be too big to be taken up by the gut cells. NAD+ can however be delivered intravenously, skipping the digestive tract. IV NAD+ has been shown to improve various aging biomarkers.
Taking nicotinamide (NA) is also not advised. NA is too early in the pathway that converts NA into NAD+. The pathway is as follows:
NA => NR => NMN => NAD+
So NA is first converted into NR, then into NMN and then into NAD+. Also, nicotinamide could actually inhibit sirtuins, the important enzymes that help to protect the DNA and the epigenome. This is because NAD+ is converted into NA in order to “activate” the sirtuins. So the end product of this reaction is a breakdown of NAD+ and an increase in NA. If there is too much NA present, this will hinder this conversion of NAD+ into NA, and thus proper sirtuin functioning.
Currently, scientific evidence seems to suggest that NMN is better than NR. This makes sense, because NMN is further down the NAD+ production pathway. Molecularly speaking, NMN looks more like NAD+ than NR does.
Additionally, studies show impressive results of NMN on many aging mechanisms, more so than NR.
Various biotech companies look into NMN to treat aging and aging-related diseases. Well-known experts on NAD+ metabolism take NMN, not NR, which might hint at something.
Additionally, many people claim that NMN supplements work better for them than NR supplements, especially to improve energy.
NR supplements are often advised and touted on the internet, mainly by people who sell NR supplements. One reason for this is that NMN is a relatively new molecule, which cannot be patented and was very expensive and difficult to manufacture until very recently.
NMN VS NR COMPARISON
|NMN is bigger than NR and contains a phosphate group||NR is smaller than NMN and does not contain a phosphate group|
|NMN can be immediately converted into NAD+||NR needs to be first converted into NMN before it can be converted into NAD+|
|NMN is more similar to NAD+ than NR||NR is less similar to NAD+ than NMN|
|NMN is more stable in the blood plasma||NR quickly degrades into nicotinamide|
|Studies seem to demonstrate stronger and more extensive effects of NMN||NR seems to have less strong and diverse effects on aging and various aging-related diseases|
|NMN improved a mitochondrial disease called Friedreich’s ataxia in mice||NR didn’t improve Friedreich’s ataxia in a mice model|
|NMN improved amyloid beta accumulation in a mice Alzheimer’s disease model||NR didn’t improve amyloid beta accumulation in a mice Alzheimer’s disease model|
|NMN improved treadmill run time by 60% and almost doubled exercise endurance in mice||NR reduced physical performance by 35%|
|Many people claim that NMN provides more energy than NR (anecdotal evidence)||Many people claim that NR improves energy levels less than NMN|
|NMN activates SIRT3||NR does not seem to activate SIRT3|
|Professor David Sinclair, arguably the world’s leading expert in NAD metabolism, takes NMN, not NR|