Maxwatt, I don't see any mention in the Daily Mail article of +/- 13 years for Sinclair's age as you wrote. Sinclair, 47, said his pre NMN biological age was estimated to be 58 and after taking NMN for 3 months had an estimate of 32 years old. Is Sinclair lying about his estimated biological age as you suggest? It is possible, but I doubt it.

You quoted the daily mail as: with resveratrol at age "45 in 2015 and [he] still had a biological age of 58 according to what he recently revealed in an interview. Before he began taking 500 mg of NMN, he said his blood work showed that his biological age was that of a 58 year old but after the NMN, it had reversed to 32.

"

I subtracted 45 from 58 to get 13, and 32 from 45 to get 13. Hence +/- 13.

I know one of Sinclair's former postdoc students. He might ask for us what Sinclair was using for a test.

In the meantime Rapamycin looks more promising, but I am not ruling out NMN or dasatinib and quercetin, or a host of other molecules as being potentially beneficial. We need more data.

FWIW, for what its worth, I took one of those "age tests" and scored 14 years younger than my birth year. I'd been taking resveratrol for years. Tried NR with no noticeable effect. And this proves nothing.

Edited by maxwatt, 01 May 2017 - 03:28 AM.

See the original post here:

David Sinclair's biological age was 58 after taking 1000 mg ...