NAD+: what the evidence supports, and what it does not

NAD+ is real biochemistry with a marketing problem. It is a coenzyme central to mitochondrial energy production and DNA repair, and its levels decline measurably with age. That much is not controversial.

What is less settled is how much restoring it changes outcomes in humans. The animal data is genuinely striking. The human data is early, mostly small, and mostly focused on surrogate markers rather than hard endpoints.

What we see in practice, consistently, is subjective: members report clearer afternoons, better recovery, and better sleep within two to three weeks. That is worth something. It is not the same as a proven lifespan effect, and we do not pretend otherwise.

Route matters. Oral NAD+ is largely broken down before absorption, which is why we use injection as the primary route and nasal spray as the convenience option. Precursors such as NMN and NR are reasonable alternatives with their own evidence base.

Our position: worth including in a longevity protocol, worth tracking against your own markers, not worth believing the more extravagant claims about.