Talk:Nicotinamide riboside
 | 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 riboside.
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nicotinamide riboside article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
sourcing
editIt is not valid to have content like this:
NR was discovered as a human vitamin precursor of NAD+ in 2004[1] and as a sirtuin-activating compound[2] in 2007 by Charles Brenner.
References
- ^ Bieganowski, P; Brenner, C (2004). "Discoveries of Nicotinamide Riboside as a Nutrient and Conserved NRK Genes Establish a Preiss-Handler Independent Route to NAD+ in Fungi and Humans". Cell. 117 (4): 495–502. doi:10.1016/S0092-8674(04)00416-7. PMID 15137942.
- ^ Belenky, P; et al. (2007). "Nicotinamide Riboside Promotes Sir2 Silencing and Extends Lifespan via Nrk and Urh1/Pnp1/Meu1 Pathways to NAD+". Cell. 129 (3): 473–484. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2007.03.024. PMID 17482543.
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
editUser: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:
- "GRAS Notice (GRN) No. 635". 2016.
The NOAEL from the 90-day rodent study is 300 mg/kg/day and effects noted at the LOAEL of 1000 mg/kg/day are considered to be mild and potentially adaptive in nature due to prolonged exposure to this form of niacin.
- --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)
- No that is not the only reason why we follow MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 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
editVagueness, puffery in history
editThe 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)