>>21490470
Where's the cheese fork

>>149879757
unironically a great song

>>76394049
>>76394057
I was taking NAC back when everyone was still hyper-focused on the cancer mice; mouse models are informative but not perfectly correlative, I'm on several hair molecules that only have published mouse evidence and some with both mouse and human evidence. Generally, don't generalize mouse results too much.

>>76364721
>mice studies
>you people are fucking retarded kek
Some of them actually translate in efficacy, believe it or not.

>le mouse study on GlyNAC
>GlyNAC (Glycine and N-Acetylcysteine) Supplementation in Mice Increases Length of Life by Correcting Glutathione Deficiency, Oxidative Stress, Mitochondrial Dysfunction, Abnormalities in Mitophagy and Nutrient Sensing, and Genomic Damage
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8912885/

>le human study on GlyNAC
>Supplementing Glycine and N-Acetylcysteine (GlyNAC) in Older Adults Improves Glutathione Deficiency, Oxidative Stress, Mitochondrial Dysfunction, Inflammation, Physical Function, and Aging Hallmarks: A Randomized Clinical Trial
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35975308/
But you're going to wait for the double-blinded clincial trial tracking overall survival for 100 years before you go to GNC, right?

>>76245585
>is still the best growth stimulant on the market
if you define the "market" is what 1990s FDA boomers say grows hair, then sure. but there are tons of RCs/oils/extracts/whatevers what beat it.
>protip: a lot of these "hurr durr mice/petri dish" chemicals actually work, and several are better than min, some with partially the same mechanisms of action.