Can you please tell me where to buy SMI?
Prolactin "minitherapy" with SMI-1 (novel protocol for lowering prolactin locally)
- Thread starter FollicleGuardian
- Start date
Lo Compre en una compra de grupo con unos de aqui. No se so habra otra compra.
I don't have before pictures of my sides and back in afraid. Anyway, I was on finasteride for around a year and didn't see any regrowth. I switched to dutasteride, which I think is better.
- Reaction score
- 686
That regrowth looks really good. Did you note any side effects, starting smi?
Not really. Some people claimed vivid dreams but I didn't notice.
- Reaction score
- 107
You take metformin, rapamycin, and fisetin + querecetin for anti aging?
Yup, along with Hyaluronic Acid, Pure Apigenin, Niacin, and Pure TMG. They're meant to boost NAD.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 107
Why not just take NMN in that case?
- Reaction score
- 340
How long have you been on SMI for?
Why does everybody take NMN when it has to be converted to NR before it can be absorbed?
- Reaction score
- 107
I don't think this has been proven. SLC12A8 is expressed in humans and it can transport NMN across the cell membrane. NMN is the direct precursor to NAD+ so it would be more efficient than NR
This would make NR more efficient, and it's also cheaper.
NMN v. NR -- Which Is More Effective?
NR and NMN are chemically very similar, but they don't cost the same, and some studies show diifferent effects
www.right-of-assembly.org
- Reaction score
- 686
Any further progress
I didn't notice major shedding.
NMN might be something I take in the future. I took NR for a few months and didn't notice any difference. I then read that it might be better to boost NAD with some of the stuff I'm taking if you're a bit younger.
My understanding is that once you reach 35, your NAD levels drop dramatically, so that's when NMN and NR are a better option. I'm not that far from 35, so I may consider it in the future. It's expensive af though. I buy from donotage website.
A little over three weeks.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 107
Right I know that, but I was saying that it hasn't been proven NR is more effective as there are pathways for NMN to enter cells directly: https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-018-0009-4#change-historyThis would make NR more efficient, and it's also cheaper.
NMN v. NR -- Which Is More Effective?
NR and NMN are chemically very similar, but they don't cost the same, and some studies show diifferent effects
That being said, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't take either NR or NMN as I'm too young for it to do anything. If there are human clinical trials showing which one is more effective then I would be interested, otherwise it's just speculation. NR is cheaper and more stable so it's probably the safer choice to go with as of now.
when you take oral SMI, do you take it by itself without mixing it with anything? also, how are you measuring it? i bought a scale off amazon, but it's completely useless.
Ok, but the study I just posted contradicts that. "NMN must first undergo extracellular degradation to nicotinamide, nicotinic acid, or nicotinamide riboside in order to be taken up into cells". I don't understand how you say you know that and then you go on to say the opposite. Perhaps you missed that part. Maybe this is not accurate, but if it is then NMN is not nearly as good as NR so you'd be taking a big risk taking NMN whereas you know NR works. Further studies have to be conducted on humans to determine which of these studies is correct. What we can say for sure is that NR works, so I see no reason to risk taking NMN instead. Even in best case scenario it won't work much better since NR is very good at converting to NAD. As of now there are more studies showing that NR works in humans than NMN. This could change, and NMN could be slightly better. I assume NMM popularity comes from David Sinclair, but even he admits that NR might be better, they need more study to find out. For now I will stick with the more stable molecule.
Last edited: