Why You May Not Need NAD boosting Supplements by Jerry Brainum 2/26

 

Science is one of the best sources of truth. This relates to the scientific method, which starts with a hypothesis or supposition and proceeds to test or disprove it. Science studies vary in usefulness; many don't prove anything but suggest possible trends. Examples of that are observational or epidemiological studies that often examine large groups of people but rarely, if ever, show cause-and-effect relationships. A common mistake people make when reading about medical studies is assuming that correlation proves causation. That means that, because something seems to be associated with something else, unless you can show a definite cause-and-effect relationship, the study results may not be applicable or may be wrong.

Why am I going into this brief discourse about the nature of science studies? Because much of what you read or see on the Internet is based on spurious and wrong information. Popular and social media love to jump on sensational findings without considering what the findings mean. {pullquote]An example is using animal or isolated cell studies to assume that what happens in such studies applies to human physiology. Sometimes, they do, but often, they have little or no relevance to human health and fitness.[/pullquote]An example is using animal or isolated cell studies to assume that what happens in such studies applies to human physiology. Sometimes, they do, but often, they have little or no relevance to human health and fitness. Despite these problems, most people tend to put scientists and physicians on unassailable pedestals, thinking they are the ultimate experts whose opinions are beyond challenge simply because of their advanced degrees. This is known in philosophy as the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. I've seen countless videos and articles featuring such scientists and doctors, which are often nonsense. In other cases, the scientist has an ulterior motive: pushing certain products because they have a vested interest in them, and their main concern is not improving their followers' health but making massive monetary profits.

A good case in point is David Sinclair. Sinclair is an Australian who emigrated to the United States and is currently the head of a lab associated with Harvard Medical School. He has published many studies on genetics and longevity, and has written a book offering practical ways to extend longevity. His credentials seem impeccable, and because of that, he has attracted a large following. Sinclair is an extreme self-promoter who has appeared in countless videos repeating the same things. He often emphasizes that he's not affiliated with any supplement companies and makes it seem as if his sole interest is helping people live longer and healthier lives. His opinions are quoted and repeated constantly by others who act as if he's the ultimate authority on life extension.

I admit that I, too, was initially impressed with Sinclair. I first encountered him discussing the benefits of a previously esoteric substance . . .