* Download comes with a free subscription to our newsletter. You can unsubscribe any time. You will not get duplicate emails if you download more than one report.
Should be interesting to see Rhonda’s thoughts on this. I tweeted this to the Faheymeister and I’m certain he’s seen it already. If he doesn’t tweet me back I’ll just walk to his office after the holidays. It’ll take me an entire 54 seconds to get there from my office . Bwahahahaha.
Any update on this?
Still curious what thoughts there are on this.
Is there an amount of these compounds we should be looking at getting from a day or weekly basis or just “ eat these foods” and worry less about the actual amounts?
@woody42 That’s definitely a good question. I have heard Ben Greenfield mention on his podcast a few times a study that showed drinking green tea, despite being high in antioxidants, did not have the same hindrance on muscle gains that taking other exogenous antioxidants. (I tried looking for the episode/study but could not find either)
I still try to limit the antioxidants consumed around training time whether they are from more “whole” sources like coffee/tea/food or pills.
That all being said. If you need the coffee to workout, working with a high amount of antioxidants is still probably much better than not working out. (Although this is not a very scientific conclusion)
They didn’t account for cooking style. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17011103 (this study shows why this is important) Their calculations are based of self reported data and multiplied that to get a total glucosinolate amount. Another thing that would be interesting to see is the risk factor for T2D vs. cancer. There could be an inverse relationship, there could also be gender factors and environmental factors at play here.
So given that this study is based on self reported data (not exactly a gold standard for accuracy) and did not take into consideration how these food items were cooked, we should be able to take this study with a grain of salt?
Wait… what now? That is definitely disheartening to read. Anyone else hoping there is some crazy flaw in this paper that is glossed over?
I hope so, this is super upsetting. I hope the experiment seriously overlooked something
I am not great at reading results of studies, but would this have a negative impact on weight training/putting on muscle? Should Rosemary be avoided surrounding exercise to not interfere with those goals?
do you believe this result is due to the sulforaphane / sulforaphane precursors, meaning there would be grater benefit to just using broccoli sprouts over adding in watercress?
Or would the other beneficial compounds in the watercress be the main culprits behind these affects?
Definitely very interesting. Does this mean that taking this combo (which is the Basis product by Elysium) a good way to try to stave off aging?
Is it something that is worth taking if you are younger than the population in the trial (men and women ages 60 - 80)
Edit: also, how do these effects compare to a combo with regular (cheap and not patented) B3?
My interest is definitely piqued. The animal evidence is exciting too. That said, I do worry about some of the changes they observed in cholesterol (although I think that was due to pterostilbene). It might not be that worthy of concern (there’s more to heart disease than just total LDL), but, in general, I’d still like to see more evidence.
I realize that this doesn’t answer your questions directly. They’re good ones, but I don’t have all of the answers.
Anyone considering buying from Elysium should think twice. Here is why: https://www.right-of-assembly.org/single-post/2017/08/16/Why-I-Feel-Suckered-by-Elysium-Health
I personally went with Thorne (Tru Niagen carries a 25% import duty where I live or I would have opted for those).
That’s good to hear the animal evidence looks exciting, and hopefully the cholesterol observations aren’t an issue.
Elysium Health seem to be on the right path. (Still always skeptical of a company funding/doing research on their own products)
But they were very responsive on twitter relating to this study and their desire to look into taking human biopsies in future clinical trials to answer if NAD concentrations actually increase in the mitochondria vs circulating in the blood/tissues.
Definitely an area to keep on my radar.
Regarding the funding issue: that’s true, but this issue is definitely mitigated by the impact factor of the journal IMO. A Nature paper is pretty top shelf.
They’re definitely doing Twitter right… I think the Twitter thread to which you’re referring shows a desire to talk to the actual science. I was impressed, anyway.
I feel like this is an important first step into moving towards a system more able to focus on preventative health care if these computer systems can accurately pinpoint large risks for individuals farther in advance.
Great point! This is especially true if you can measure progress inexpensively and conveniently. I think people feel powerless to know what type of changes they need to make because of sometimes conflicting messages. If you can try something out (maybe a new exercise routine or diet) and then see those effects boiled down to some sort of hard assessment, it would be very helpful to reinforce productive healthful behaviors.
Is there a cost effective feasible way to take advantage of this compound now or do we need to wait for the cosmetic industry to implement it into creams and whatnot?
© Copyright FoundMyFitness.