Digestery
Longevity supplements › NMN and Aging › Studies

Randomized trial · measured lab tests or safety

A trial of NR plus pterostilbene in 32 adults found no clear muscle gain

Jensen and colleagues · JCI insight · 2022

Original title: A randomized placebo-controlled trial of nicotinamide riboside and pterostilbene supplementation in experimental muscle injury in elderly individuals.

Under review. A person has not yet checked this summary against the paper. It is written from the PubMed abstract. Until a person checks it, search engines are asked not to list this page.

What the study found

No difference

NR plus pterostilbene was safe but did not improve muscle stem cell recruitment or other measures of muscle recovery after injury.

The study at a glance

Type of study
Randomized trial
Who or what was studied
32 people · Older adults aged 55 to 80
What was tested
NR 1,000 mg plus pterostilbene 200 mg a day, vs placebo, with a muscle injury made after 2 weeks
What it measured
Lab tests or markers
Daily amount
1000 mg a day
Trial registration
NCT03754842
Who has a stake
No disclosure in PubMed
No COI statement in PubMed. Funded by Novo Nordisk Foundation.
Journal
JCI insight, 2022
Source
PubMed record 35998039. This page is based on the abstract only.

How much this study counts

  • ✓Randomized: people were put into groups by chance, so the groups start out alike.
  • ✓Compared with a placebo, a dummy treatment.
  • –Small: 32 people. Small trials can miss real effects or find chance ones.
  • –Measured lab tests or markers, which stand in for aging and age-related decline. A better marker does not always mean better health.
  • •The PubMed record has no conflict-of-interest statement.
  • •Summarized from the PubMed abstract only. The full paper may hold details the abstract leaves out.

✓ Strength– Limit• Note

These points come from fixed rules about the type of study, its size and length, what it measured, and who has a stake. Every study on Digestery gets the same rules.

Where this study sits

Each dot is one on-topic paper on this question. Steps near the top answer the question more directly.

↑ Stronger evidence

  1. Trials in people: aging and age-related decline

    0

    Not done yet. This is the step that would answer the question.

  2. Trials in people: other measures

    9

    3 benefit, 2 mixed, 4 no difference

  3. Trials in people: lab tests or safety

    7

    4 benefit, 1 mixed, 2 no difference

    ↑ This study is the ringed dot

  4. Population studies

    0

    None among the papers we read.

  5. Blood levels and genes

    0

    None among the papers we read.

  6. Animals

    6

    5 benefit, 1 mixed

↓ Weaker evidence

  • Points to benefit
  • Mixed
  • No difference
  • No direction
  • Points to harm

How it fits with the other research

The short answer to “Does NMN slow aging?”

Not shown in people so far.

Confidence: very low. Based on 29 on-topic papers.

Read the full answer

Of the other 6 papers on the same step: 4 benefit, 1 mixed, 1 no difference. This one found no difference. It differs from most of them.

Other papers on the same step

See all 29 studies on this question

How this page was made

Label

First read of the abstract
Claude Sonnet
Independent second read
Claude Haiku
Differences settled
The reviewer corrected 2 fields after reading the abstract. Claude Opus 5.5.
Headline
Claude Sonnet, from the checked study record. A script checked its numbers and wording.
Numbers
Checked against the abstract by a script
“How much this study counts”
Fixed rules, the same for every study
Source check by a person
Not yet. Required before search engines may list this page.

Spot an error? Email a flag with a link to your source, or use the form on the question page.