Hacker News Reader

Comment by bearjaws | Hacker News Reader

Just a heads up about NAD, its not recommended to take NAD if you or your family has a known history of cancer (primarily at younger ages <50).

While it does not itself cause cancer, it accelerates cancer growth and thus can make catching it early less likely.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6315198/

View on HN

That sounds like a plausible reason for evolution to have given us lower NAD levels when we're older.

For the vast majority of our species' existence, we overwhelmingly died of causes other than cancer, so if there is any evolutionary pressure in this regard, it should be weak. Cancer as a significant cause of death is a Modern Age phenomenon.

Also, the mechanism may be more complicated. What if NAD+ levels influence the immune system somehow? (Our first line defence against cancer.) Metabolism isn't a straightforward (A -> B) system at all.

I have to disagree with you on that. There are a great many mechanisms we evolved, most long before we were human, that appear to be anticancer mechanisms. Off the top of my head senescence, apoptosis, and telomeres. The fact we don't all die of cancer earlier is a result of this.

This reminds me of Weinstein’s theory that cellular regeneration and cancer are two sides of the same coin. Senescence acts as a last resort against uncontrolled mitosis, ie cancer. This is why for example a mole that grows round and stops isn’t worrisome, but one that starts growing again from an arbitrary point and is thus asymmetric is very worrisome. In the former case the would-be tumor has burned out its telomeres and can’t grow anymore. In the latter case it indicates that the telomeric failsafe has failed and that tumor will grow without bound.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com