1 reply to this topic

[osris]

The clinical science for NAD+ precursors is still in its slow and steady phase. 

 

Research has confirmed that taking NMN (Nicotinamide Mononucleotide) or NR (Nicotinamide Riboside) effectively raises NAD⁺ levels in the blood. However, there is a gap in the science.

 

We can boost NAD+ levels but don’t yet know if this actually slows the biological clock or extends human lifespan. Most longevity claims are extrapolated from mice and yeast, which don’t always translate to humans.

 

Many successful clinical trials use between 500 mg and 2000 mg per day to see a significant physiological change. Even with a high dose, NAD+ molecules are fragile. If the supplement isn't formulated well, much of it can be broken down by the digestive system before it ever reaches your cells.

So is it worth taking them, especially given how expensive they are?

[BigBalli]

"Worth taking" depends on what you're buying it for. If the goal is lifespan extension, the honest answer is nobody knows yet and the price doesn't justify betting on rodent extrapolations. If the goal is specific symptoms (fatigue, post-exercise recovery, mild cognitive friction in your 50s+), the human RCT data is more defensible even if modest. Two things tip the ROI for me. 1. Dose. The positive studies cluster at 500-1000 mg NR or NMN daily. Most consumer products are 150-300 mg, which pharmacokinetically doesn't move the needle much even if NAD+ metabolites rise in blood. 2. Baseline. People under metabolic stress (older, sedentary, recovering from illness) see bigger changes than healthy 30-40s. A 35 year old sleeping well and lifting twice a week probably can't tell supplemented NAD+ apart from placebo in a blinded self-test. What I do: 500 mg NMN on hard training weeks, skip it the rest of the time. Cheaper, and I haven't convinced myself the continuous dose does more than the targeted one. Not ruling it out forever, but I'm waiting for the big outcome trials before committing $100 a month.