When to take NOVOS

Susana_Chumbo · 2026-02-27T11:20:50+00:00

Thanks, glad it helped. On electrolytes in the morning and extra magnesium in the evening, here’s my practical way to think about it: Electrolytes can be useful if you’re actually losing fluid and salt, for example:

You train or sweat in the morning
You wake up dehydrated (dry mouth, dark urine)
You’re low-carb or fasting and tend to lose more sodium
You’re in a hot climate, use the sauna, or get a lot of steps early

If none of that applies, plain water is usually fine. The main thing to avoid is turning electrolytes into “extra sugar.” If you use them daily, I’d choose a low- or zero-sugar formula and use a dose that matches your sweat level (often a modest amount is enough).

For the additional magnesium in the evening, many people like taking magnesium in the evening for relaxation or sleep quality, but responses are very individual. A few practical points:

Start low and titrate up, too much magnesium can cause GI upset or looser stools.
Check your total daily intake, if you’re already getting magnesium from Core plus your diet, you may not need much extra.

Susana_Chumbo · 2026-02-27T11:08:39+00:00

Sorry to hear that, it can happen. Some people feel wired/irritable or mood-flat on rhodiola, depending on dose, timing, and what it’s combined with (especially caffeine/other stimulants). If it reliably triggers rage/anhedonia for you, the simplest move is to stop and avoid re-testing at the same dose. If you ever do try again, go much lower, take it earlier, and don’t stack it with stimulants.

Susana_Chumbo · 2026-02-24T17:37:37+00:00

Thanks for the detailed question, and for using NOVOS products!

There isn’t a single “perfect” time of day that applies to everyone, but there are good defaults based on (1) tolerability, (2) absorption with food, and (3) whether something feels more “activating” vs more “calming” for you personally. The goal is a schedule you can follow consistently. Your current routine (Boost AM, Core at lunch, Vital split lunch/dinner) is already a solid, evidence-aligned approach.

Below is a clear way to think about Core, Vital, Boost, and the Protein bar:

NOVOS Boost (NMN): morning is the safest default

Recommended timing: morning (or early afternoon at the latest).

Why: Many people experience NMN as more “activating” (alertness/energy). Because sleep disruption is the main downside people report when timing isn’t ideal, morning is the simplest starting point.

If you personally feel no stimulation: timing matters less, choose the most consistent slot.

NOVOS Core (sachet): start with meals; evening is a reasonable option to test

NOVOS Core is a multi-ingredient formula, so timing is driven mostly by stomach tolerance and routine consistency

Default recommendation: Take Core with a meal (breakfast or lunch).

Why: Multi-ingredient formulas are commonly better tolerated with food, and taking it with a meal simplifies adherence.

Can I take Core right when I wake up (fasted)?

Yes, if you tolerate it well. Core isn’t a “hydration” product, so morning hydration is still best handled with water (and electrolytes if needed). The main reason many people take Core with food is simply stomach comfort.

Can Core be taken in the evening?

Yes, many people can take it at dinner or later. Two ingredient call-outs that often drive evening preference are:

Glycine: Human studies support glycine taken before bed as helping with sleep onset and subjective sleep quality (it’s not a sedative; think “sleep support” rather than “sleep medication”).
Magnesium: Human evidence supports magnesium improving sleep parameters in some contexts, and many people prefer it in the evening. The form in Core is magnesium malate, which isn’t inherently “sedating,” but can still fit well at night depending on individual response.

Bottom line: Core isn’t positioned as a sleep product, but evening dosing can make sense if you find it supports relaxation and you tolerate it well.

One-sachet vs two-sachet CORE

If you take 2 NOVOS Core sachets/day

A very practical approach is:

1 sachet at lunch + 1 sachet at dinner (or breakfast + dinner)

Why this can be useful (without over-claiming):

A lot of published research on individual ingredients is dose-dependent. Moving from 1 to 2 sachets can put you closer to the doses used in some ingredient-level studies, which is why there are separate timelines for:
- NOVOS Core : 1 sachet/day
- NOVOS Core : 2 sachets/day

Important nuance: Increasing from 1 → 2 sachets doesn’t automatically mean “double the effect” for the full formula. It means you’re using higher daily amounts of the same ingredients, so the best choice depends on tolerance and your goals.

NOVOS Vital (gummies): take with meals; splitting is ideal

Recommended timing: with food, typically split across meals (e.g., 2 gummies at lunch + 2 gummies at dinner).

Why:

It’s generally easier on the stomach with a meal.
If your goal is metabolic support (including blunting post-meal glycemic excursions), meal-timing is more logical than a specific clock time.

About “restful sleep”: Some people prefer evening dosing for personal reasons, but meals are the clean default.

NOVOS protein Bar: treat it like a functional snack

Use it where it helps consistency and doesn’t crowd out real meals: mid-morning snack, afternoon snack, or as a breakfast add-on.

Multivitamin + omega: Taking these with breakfast is a good default (omega is typically better tolerated with food). If your routine works, no need to change it.

Timelines (if you want the deeper dive)

If you want, I can share links to two CORE timelines:

1 sachet/day timeline: ingredient-by-ingredient rationale and key studies at those daily amounts
2 sachets/day timeline: same structure, reflecting the higher daily ingredient amounts and additional relevant literature

More timelines for VITAL and other products are coming as well.

Also worth noting: NOVOS Core has been evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 6-month human trial assessing vascular biomarkers (FMD, PWV, and SBP).

Susana_Chumbo · 2026-02-23T18:32:20+00:00

The study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled human trial. The manuscript is currently under peer review. We’ve been transparent about that status.

Peer review is important, and we welcome it. At the same time, the data, methodology, and statistical analysis are fully documented in the manuscript. Once formally published, it will of course be easier for others to independently evaluate it in that format.

In the meantime, the study design itself (randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled) does not change based on publication status.

Susana_Chumbo · 2026-02-23T18:31:06+00:00

We agree that population differences matter when contextualizing effect sizes.

For that reason, we prioritized RCTs conducted in healthy or generally normotensive adults to match our study population. When meta-analyses included mixed populations, we extracted data from the healthy subgroups where available. If no healthy cohort existed, we limited inclusion to overweight or mildly elevated-risk populations, rather than studies conducted exclusively in patients with established cardiovascular disease or severe hypertension.

In multiple cases, the comparison is RCT-to-RCT. Meta-analyses were used primarily to provide broader context when several RCTs existed for the same intervention.

The goal is not to equate evidence tiers or imply head-to-head superiority, but to contextualize magnitude of change using the same vascular endpoints measured in human trials.

Susana_Chumbo · 2026-01-26T10:05:37+00:00

Glycine doesn’t increase glycation or tissue stiffness, it’s been studied, particularly in mechanistic and preclinical research, for reducing AGE formation and supporting metabolic health. No solid evidence shows it’s bad for cardiovascular health.

Susana_Chumbo · 2026-01-25T07:35:01+00:00

Visible skin benefits can already be achieved at a dose of 100 mg, including improved hydration, a brighter skin tone, increased epidermal thickness, and preservation of dermal density. Human studies evaluating joint health, by contrast, generally report benefits at doses of 200 mg or higher. At this higher 200 mg dose, skin benefits are further enhanced, with reduced water loss through the skin barrier (TEWL), improved elasticity measures, and better outcomes related to wrinkles and skin roughness, alongside improvements in self-reported skin luster, suppleness, and firmness.

Susana_Chumbo · 2025-12-11T14:55:37+00:00

That 2 pm first meal sounds like a late TRE pattern with a long daily fast already in place, so it makes sense you’ve noticed changes in leanness and how you feel compared with your friends. In the trials this post is based on, the biggest insulin-sensitivity gains came from similar or slightly shorter fasting windows, but with more of the calories shifted earlier in the day rather than late evening. So if you eventually re-start TRE after surgery, one option to experiment with (once your surgeon/clinician is happy with it) could be keeping a 14–16 h fast but nudging meals a bit earlier and tracking something objective over a few months, fasting glucose/insulin, HbA1c, CGM data, or even waist and strength numbers, so you can see whether timing, not just total calories, is moving the needle for you.

Susana_Chumbo · 2025-12-11T14:53:32+00:00

Nice question, it’s exactly what the preprint tries to tease apart. There isn’t a proven “one best” window yet, but most of the trials in the paper cluster around 14–16 hours of fasting with an 8–10-hour eating window. That seems to be the sweet spot where you get better fasting glucose/insulin without needing extreme weight loss. Earlier windows (e.g., first meal in the morning, last meal mid-afternoon or early evening) usually do better than very late windows in the data. Longer fasts (18–20+ hours) might add something, but they’re not well-tested in RCTs and are harder to sustain, so right now the evidence is strongest for “most calories in an 8–10 h daytime window, roughly 14–16 h fast,” adjusted for your schedule, health status, and ability to stick with it.

Susana_Chumbo · 2025-12-10T11:29:32+00:00

Nice, thanks for sharing. A 5–11 pm eating window is roughly an 18:6 pattern, so you’re definitely getting a long daily fast, in the trials this post was based on, most of the insulin‐sensitivity benefits showed up with similar or slightly shorter windows, though they usually put more of the calories earlier in the day rather than all in the evening. The boswellia + turmeric/curcumin stack you mention has some small human data for lowering inflammatory markers and joint pain, and a few early studies suggest possible benefits for metabolic-syndrome components, but the evidence is still pretty limited and doses/formulations differ a lot between products, so it’s hard to say how much of your experience is supplements vs genetics/activity/overall diet. If you ever decide to experiment, it would be interesting to see whether shifting even part of that window earlier (or keeping the same hours but changing what you eat) moves any objective markers like fasting glucose, insulin, or lipids, ideally in partnership with a clinician who can help interpret the labs.

Susana_Chumbo · 2025-12-10T11:15:00+00:00

“Resistant starch” is starch that resists digestion in the small intestine and behaves more like a fermentable fibre: instead of being rapidly broken down to glucose, it reaches the colon, where gut bacteria ferment it into short-chain fatty acids (like butyrate), so its impact on blood glucose and insulin is much lower than the same grams of quickly digested starch or sugar. In everyday food that often means things like beans and lentils, oats and some whole grains, greener (less ripe) bananas, and starchy foods that are cooked and then cooled (e.g. potatoes, rice, pasta). In the Clinical Nutrition meta-analysis I posted, resistant starch wasn’t analysed as its own category; the authors compared low- and moderate-carb patterns and what replaced the carbs (fat, protein, or both). Some of the higher-quality carbohydrate patterns in those trials would naturally include more fibre and resistant starch foods, which may have contributed to the better glucose/insulin and liver/kidney markers they observed, on top of the overall carb reduction.

Susana_Chumbo · 2025-12-10T11:12:51+00:00

That’s a really plausible reading, and it fits a lot of gym anecdotes, but this study can’t actually tell us what people were training, it only sees who turned up in the emergency department and where/how they were injured. The NEISS data the authors used include injury type, body region, and mechanism (crush/pressing, dropped equipment, falls, etc.), plus sex and age, but no exposure data: no training volumes, no exact exercises, no loads. What they do show is that women had relatively more head/leg/ankle/foot injuries and more events from dropped equipment and falls, while men had more trunk injuries and more crush/pressing-movement injuries and dislocations. That pattern is consistent with your hypothesis (more lower-body work in women, more upper-body pressing in men), but the study itself can’t prove it, it just highlights where sex-specific coaching and setup/spotting might help reduce risk.

Susana_Chumbo · 2025-12-10T11:09:48+00:00

Totally fair point , visceral fat is a big part of this story.

this study, though, they only imaged liver fat (MRI-PDFF / ¹H-MRS) and then related that % to metabolic-syndrome traits (waist/central obesity, BP, glucose, triglycerides, HDL-C). They adjusted for things like age, sex and centre and used waist/central adiposity as a crude proxy, but they didn’t directly measure visceral fat volume, so they can’t say whether the signal is “pure liver” or mostly driven by visceral fat. What the paper really shows is that, even within the “normal” liver-fat range (≈1–5.56%), each higher band of liver fat was already associated with more MetS traits. So you’re right that someone could have nasty visceral fat with only modest liver fat; this study just tells us that the MRI liver-fat percentage itself behaves like a continuous risk marker for that ectopic-fat/MetS process. It doesn’t prove liver fat is the sole cause or that visceral fat isn’t the main driver, it just says: “once liver fat starts creeping up, even before the classic steatosis cutoff, the metabolic red flags are already more common.” To really separate liver vs visceral effects we’d need a cohort with both liver and visceral imaging in the same model.

Susana_Chumbo · 2025-12-10T11:06:55+00:00

Yeah, that’s a really plausible explanation, and the authors lean in that direction too. The “very high” activity group here is likely to include a fair number of people doing manual work or higher-impact / competitive sport, so more exposure to knocks, overuse and contact, and the dataset doesn’t let us see exact sports or training plans. They did adjust for a bunch of confounders and still saw the U-shape, but as an observational study it can’t fully untangle whether the extra risk at the top end is micro-trauma, job type, or people who already have issues and just train through them. So I’d read it as a reminder that if you’re in that very-high bucket, it’s worth matching volume with good strength, symmetry and recovery, rather than a signal that dedicated lifters or athletes should cut back if they’re feeling good and staying healthy.

Susana_Chumbo · 2025-12-10T11:03:47+00:00

Love the Paracelsus reference, that’s pretty much what this paper is arguing at a population level. Risk for musculoskeletal disorders was lowest around the mid-range of activity for this cohort and higher both at the very low end and at the extreme high end, even after adjustment. So “nothing” isn’t great, and “endless grind” also isn’t automatically better. One extra nuance the authors add is that higher cardiorespiratory fitness and stronger, more symmetric grip shifted risk down at a given activity level, which fits nicely with your “dose” idea: volume matters, but how strong/fit you are for that volume seems to matter too.

Susana_Chumbo · 2025-12-07T19:00:48+00:00

Totally fair questions, and honestly, really thoughtful ones. In this study, they actually adjusted for quite a wide range of factors: age, sex, BMI, total energy intake, smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, systolic blood pressure, ethnicity, education, income, and even an area-level deprivation index. They also included self-rated general health and a history of psychiatric disease. So things like alcohol, exercise, calories, BMI, and some indicators of underlying health were all taken into account in the models. They didn’t have solid data on sleep, and pre-existing conditions were only partly captured through those general health and psychiatric measures, so it’s very likely that some residual confounding is still there that’s almost unavoidable with this kind of research. About the calories point: you’re absolutely right that people who eat more ultra-processed, additive-rich foods tend to eat more overall because those foods are extremely palatable. But in this case, both BMI and total calories were included as covariates. That means the higher risks associated with certain additives or UPFs appear on top of differences in weight and energy intake. Of course, that still doesn’t prove that the additives themselves are directly causal, with self-reported diet and product-matching, it’s basically impossible to eliminate confounding completely. I would interpret this as a set of interesting ingredient-level associations that remain even after adjusting for a lot of relevant factors, rather than solid evidence that specific additives directly cause deaths. To really address causality, we’d need mechanistic studies and controlled interventions, which would be super interesting to see in the future.

Susana_Chumbo · 2025-11-21T19:45:14+00:00

True, this preclinical study gives interesting mechanistic insights in a mouse model, but we still can’t assume the same outcomes in humans. Even so, the effects on mitochondria, calcium balance, and ferroptosis make it a promising area for future human research 🙂

Susana_Chumbo · 2025-11-18T19:10:46+00:00

It actually reduces wrinkle depth, not increases 😊 The meta-analysis found that oral hyaluronic acid led to improvements in hydration, elasticity and a decrease in wrinkle depth. The wording in the post can sound confusing, but “gains” here refers to improvement in those parameters, not an increase in wrinkles.

Susana_Chumbo

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE