Should you take NMN or NR? While one group of scientists including Charles Brenner at University of Iowa focuses on NR, another group of scientists including David Sinclair at Harvard focuses on NMN as the NAD+ supplement. We need to examine the pros and cons of taking NR vs. NMN.
Arguments for NR:
- One of the primary reasons earlier scientists used NR to study the effects of NAD+ was that NR is cheaper than NMN. NMN, which is a step closer than NR to NAD+, the final product (See Figure 9), is more expensive to synthesize because of its additional phosphate group.
- Another reason some scientists like to use NR, instead of NMN, is because they believe that NMN might be too bulky to be taken into cells whereas the smaller NR can easily enter cells.
Figure borrowed from: Yoshino et al, “NAD+ Intermediates: The Biology and Therapeutic Potential of NMN and NR,” Cell Metabolism 27, March 6, 2018, pg. 514.
Arguments for NMN:
- Despite NMN’s bulkier size than NR, the recent discovery of an NMN-specific transporter completely changes the story; NMN-specific transporter Slc12a8 was identified in mice, proving that NMN can be effectively taken into cells at least in mice. The Slc12a8 gene is present in humans too and could play a critical role in transporting NMN into human cells. However, more studies need to be conducted in humans.
- At the same time, NMN might be more effective in boosting NAD+ levels than NR because NMN has its own phosphate group, which is not abundant in the body.
So, NR or NMN?
Between NMN and NR, there is no strong evidence at this point to support one molecule over the other. David Sinclair, however, states in his “Lifespan with Dr. David Sinclair’ podcast episode #4 aired on January 26, 2022, that he uses NMN because he personally saw more favorable outcomes with NMN than NR.