NAD+ Aging reversal?

the very richest will make use of it, even if the effects are minimal

I don't believe it reverses ageing, I do believe, however, that you can somehow (almost) achieve a steady state (aka, no more ageing, or very slowly)
NAD+ also is an anti-oxidant, and instead of being important in other processes it kind of wonders off doing other things than it's supposed to, depleting itself for other (more important) processes.

>>8783651
sounds like some hyped up nonsense. The way I see it, the correlation between the amount NAD+ and age is due to the fact that as we age less and less cells divide (cellular division requires a shit ton of ATP). Because less ATP is needed by a cell that is done dividing, less carrier molecules are needed by the cell for ATP synthesis.

If pumping an old cell (that souldn't be dividing anymore) with NAD+ catalyzes/induces cellular replication, then this will give off a more youthful appearance, but won't change the condition of chromosomes (specifically the telomeres) it's replicating. Meaning you'll look younger, but your chances of developing cancer will probably skyrocket.

So we buy NAD+ supplements and what, age at half the rate ?

Sounds like bullshit

Every cell in your body makes its own NAD+ every second of every day. If you want more NAD+ you just need to eat a fucking sandwich.

>>8783687
This was interesting op but again this person is right >>8783687.

When we cloned the sheep called dory the cloned live a year shorter than the original. The clone developed cancer earlier and the explanation to that is that the chromosomes had shorter telomeres when we cloned the sheep and therefore the sheep having a reduce life expectancy.

>>8783861
Is there any research into halting their truncation?

>>8783870
I am not sure, I am just a computer engineer that just remember stuff from biology class in HS.

If I remember it correctly truncation will always occur during cell division so if anything research should look into making them longer rather than halting their truncation.

>>8783870
>Is there any research into halting their truncation?
I'm sure there are people researching it, yeah
but there have been no advances in this area as far as I'm aware

>>8783870
>>8783876
And with the little knowledge I know I think reversing aging or halting it is impossible for a living person. However I would my money on science finding out a way using similar techniques used in GMO to longer the telomeres of an unborn baby during the embryo-stage(perhaps even pre fertilization and then using nuclear transferring to fertilize the egg). That way we will have babies that have potential to live for 150+ years given that they wont get infections or get infected by viruses that increase the risk for cancer. But take what I say with a grain of salt since I am not into biology, i am just sharing my vision of aging.

>>8783904
As in replicating the telomeres gene(s) from horseshoe crabs in the stead of the human gene(s)?

>>8783919
Yeah, most likely.

>>8783904
Why would it be impossible? Is there no way to repair the damage done to the cells of a living human being?

>>8784803
DNA-replication wears out the telomeres. The wear of the telomeres is heavily linked to aging and short telomeres correlate with death by old age. Cell division shortens your telomeres. Applying this, you would have to increase the length or replenish the telomeres somehow (which is finicky as the telomeres hold genetic material (they're a part of your chromosomes), so we would need a firm grasp on the DNA-make up of humans at least to even attempt trying to find a way to increase the longevity of the telomeres) to de-age. Increasing lifespan would maybe be somewhat simpler, as perhaps you could decrease the rate of cell-division (and not have your body malfunction because of the decreased rate of cell-division. There is a reason why we have cell-division after all).