Here is one flaw in the argument. I have read, and suspect its true, that we make more weight of ATP in a day than we actually weigh. Mostly that is recycled from AMP, so technically it cannot be counted the myriad times, as this converts back and forth to ATP. The problem is that in straight production terms we make oodles of ATP. Its more complicated than that.
Now increasing AMP might be useful ... more substrate for the whole process to work on. Increasing B3 somewhat is probably a good idea, as it provides more NAD. Having a balanced approach is probably a good idea.
We possibly have enough Acetyl CoA due to our increased glycolysis, but this is an assumption on my behalf. Does anyone know if this is right?
Any argument on these things has to take into account two issues. The first is feedback loops. The second is empirical evidence. Most theoretical ideas sound good but are then later proven wrong. Of course some are found to be sound, or at least useful. Caution is warranted, but that doesn't mean that a new idea should be dismissed.
NAD is also recycled. Some B3 would be good. A lot is probably unnecessary. Its about making the recycling to make ATP operate faster.
Here is one more problem. We do not yet know why we have a problem making ATP. Everything needs to be considered experimental. Some of the research (e.g. Myhil) suggests we may have transporter problems. Now more substrate might well increase the amount transported ... or not.
We might have microvascular problems, particular regulation, so the cells are oxygen deprived. If that is the case then pushing this system might do a lot of damage.
We might have cytokine issues. The wrong push might increase cytokine production. Might, not will.
We might have different subsets with different issues. Some might benefit, some might not, and some might get worse.
Biological systems have multiple feedback loops. We do not know what impact this might have. One of those I worry about is that the wrong method of increasing energy might increase negative hormonal feedback on ATP production.
One thing I would like to see more focus on is how to recycle AMP and NAD faster, and this is not just about the obvious biochemical equations. There is certainly a principle in chemistry, called Le Chateliers Principle, in which adding more substrate increase the rate of reaction. (It says more than that, but that is the message that applies here.) Under that principle, and ignoring the possible effects of the entire biological matrix, then adding more substrate such as AMP and NAD might indeed help.
It might also shut things down due to feedback effects. Deficiency states are not the only thing that can shut reactions down in a biological system. Enzymatic regulation and gene regulation might play a part here.
One risk that always lurks at the back of my thinking is that a sudden increase in burst energy production can induce massive damage to mitochondria. As always, caution should rule.
Ribose really is a special case. Our bodies can process and even make many things needed, but the ribose sugar is a rate limiting substrate. Its a potential bottleneck. Most of these processes are not bottlenecks. So the ribose needs to be in the diet to make more AMP faster.
The mineral I think would be most involved is magnesium. Its needed at multiple steps.
I am not saying this model is wrong. I am not saying don't try to treat our deficits. I am saying we need some caution.
I would really like a lot of our ideas on PR tested on things like the muscle test beds used in UK research (i.e. Newton). It would be nice if we could get a pilot study to test a lot of these ideas. With that behind us we could then organize bigger and more focused studies.
I will write more later if I can get around to it, I am going to be busy the next few days.