NAD+ Supplements: Evidence, NMN vs NR & What to Measure

NAD+ Is Everywhere. What Is Scientifically Supported, and What Is Marketing Hype?

NAD+ is everywhere. In longevity forums, in the recommendations of tech CEOs, and on the shelves of supplement companies, it is presented as a key molecule for energy, cellular repair, and a longer, healthier life. The promises are big: slower aging, sharper cognition, better metabolism. What is scientifically supported, and what is marketing hype?

Many people take an NAD+ supplement such as NMN or NR hoping for a quick effect, without knowing their own baseline. They invest in a molecule that can increase certain NAD+-related markers, while its clinical benefit for hard health outcomes has not yet been proven.

This article provides a clinically grounded assessment. We review the human studies, explain the differences between available preparations, and show why comprehensive diagnostics should be the first and most important step long before taking the first capsule. Real prevention starts with data.

What Is NAD+ and Why Is It Relevant in Aging Research?

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, or NAD+, is one of the central molecules in the human body. Cells need it for basic metabolic processes. As a coenzyme, it supports numerous enzymatic reactions, especially in energy metabolism. Without NAD+, mitochondrial energy production cannot function normally.

Two of its main roles are particularly relevant to aging biology:

Energy Production

NAD+ is central to the conversion of nutrients into cellular energy (ATP) in the mitochondria. A disrupted NAD+ metabolism may theoretically contribute to reduced cellular energy availability. In humans, however, it is not sufficiently clear at which NAD+ level measurable clinical problems arise.

Cellular Stress, DNA Repair, and Aging Biology

NAD+ is important for several enzyme classes involved in DNA repair, metabolic regulation, and cellular stress responses:

Sirtuins: These proteins regulate cellular processes such as DNA repair, inflammatory responses, and metabolism. To be active, they consume NAD+.

PARPs (Poly-ADP-Ribose Polymerases): These enzymes are involved in repairing DNA damage. This process also consumes NAD+.

The issue: Preclinical studies show fairly consistently that NAD+ levels can decline with age in various tissues. In humans, however, the evidence is much less clear. There are indications of age-related differences in certain cell and tissue types, but the exact extent varies strongly depending on tissue, measurement method, health status, and study design (Covarrubias et al., 2021; Vinten et al., 2025).

This possible decline has several discussed causes. Cells may produce less NAD+ over time, while consumption may increase, for example through DNA damage, inflammatory processes, or activation of NAD+-consuming enzymes. The important point is this: these mechanisms do not automatically mean that supplementation produces clinically relevant benefits in humans.

Low NAD+ status has been linked in preclinical models and some human observations to age-associated functional changes, including altered mitochondrial function, metabolic disturbances, and reduced cellular stress resilience. These are mostly mechanistic and associative links. Whether targeted NAD+ elevation in humans improves hard endpoints such as morbidity, mortality, cognitive performance, cardiovascular events, or healthy life years has not been proven.

NMN vs. NR: Which Supplement Is Better Supported?

Anyone looking for an NAD+ supplement will quickly come across two abbreviations: NMN and NR. Both are precursors of NAD+ that the body can use to influence NAD+-related metabolic pathways. Direct oral NAD+ supplementation is much less studied than NR or NMN; whether it reliably raises relevant NAD+ levels in target tissues in humans is not sufficiently proven.

NR (Nicotinamide Riboside)

A form of vitamin B3. Cells take up NR and convert it into NAD+ through several steps. It is among the better-studied NAD+ precursors in humans. That does not mean that a clinical benefit has already been robustly proven.

NMN (Nicotinamide Mononucleotide)

The direct precursor of NAD+ in the cellular synthesis pathway. For a long time, it was unclear whether NMN can enter cells directly or whether it first has to be converted into NR outside the cell. Preclinical research suggests the existence of a possible specific NMN transporter, but the exact uptake pathway and its relevance in humans remain debated (Grozio et al., 2019).

The scientific debate is intense and often shaped by commercial interests. From a clinical perspective, one question matters: for which substance do we have robust human studies with patient-relevant outcomes?

Nicotinamide riboside (NR) currently has a slight lead in the number and quality of published human studies. It has been tested in several randomized, placebo-controlled trials on NAD+ metabolism markers, tolerability, and selected functional endpoints. NMN is catching up. In recent years, more human studies have been published, some showing signals for insulin sensitivity, walking distance, or muscle function. However, these studies are usually small, short, and heterogeneous.

One point on dosage: human studies use very different doses depending on substance, target group, and study design, often between 250 and 1000 mg of NR or NMN daily, sometimes more. Many commercially available products contain much less, often only 150 to 300 mg per capsule. Whether such amounts produce the changes measured in studies is uncertain. Anyone choosing a product should check whether the dose matches what has actually been investigated in the scientific literature. At the same time, study doses are not automatically general recommendations for dietary supplements.

Both precursors can increase NAD+-related metabolites or blood markers in certain human studies. This is not proof that relevant target tissues are sufficiently reached or that long-term clinical benefits result. Which substance ultimately has superior clinical effects remains unclear.

What Human Studies on NAD+ Supplements Really Show

The key question is not whether an NAD+ supplement changes blood values or NAD+-related metabolites, but whether this leads to relevant health benefits. This is exactly where the evidence remains weak. Human study findings are interesting, but heterogeneous and mostly limited to surrogate markers. Here is a sober summary of the current evidence.

Cardiovascular Health

Some of the better-known data concern cardiovascular health. A small pilot study in healthy middle-aged and older adults showed that taking 1000 mg of NR daily for six weeks was well tolerated and increased NAD+-related markers. There were also indications that systolic blood pressure could decrease in people with mildly elevated baseline values. A reduction in arterial stiffness, a marker of cardiovascular risk, was also observed (Martens et al., 2018). These are clinically interesting signals, but they are not evidence for fewer heart attacks, strokes, or deaths. The study was small, short, and hypothesis-generating.

Insulin Sensitivity and Metabolism

Here, results are mixed. A well-known study examined the effect of NMN in overweight postmenopausal women with prediabetes. Participants received 250 mg of NMN daily for ten weeks. Skeletal muscle insulin sensitivity improved significantly (Yoshino et al., 2021). However, these results apply to a very specific study population and cannot automatically be transferred to men, younger people, or metabolically healthy individuals.

Other studies, such as one using NR in obese insulin-resistant men, found no significant effects on insulin sensitivity or other metabolic markers (Dollerup et al., 2018). This suggests that possible effects may depend strongly on target group, baseline status, duration of intake, measurement method, and the specific preparation used.

Muscle Strength and Endurance

A Japanese study showed that older men who received NMN for 6 or 12 weeks had changes in certain muscle and performance parameters, including nominally significant improvements in walking speed and left grip strength (Igarashi et al., 2022). Other investigations found only mixed or unclear effects. A study using NR in obese insulin-resistant men found no improvement in mitochondrial respiration, mitochondrial content, or muscle morphology compared with placebo (Dollerup et al., 2020).

Again, individual positive signals do not mean that NAD+ precursors generally improve muscle strength, endurance, or fitness. The data are too inconsistent for that.

Limits of the Current Research

The existing signals must be assessed in the context of clear limitations:

Lack of Long-Term Studies

Most studies last only a few weeks to months. Whether intake over years is safe and produces sustained benefits remains open.

Small Sample Sizes

Many studies include only small to moderate numbers of participants. Broad conclusions are therefore difficult.

No Data on Hard Endpoints

So far, no studies show that NAD+ supplements prevent heart attacks, strokes, dementia, cancer, care dependency, or death. Research focuses mostly on surrogate markers such as blood pressure, insulin sensitivity, walking distance, subjective health questionnaires, or NAD+-related metabolites.

Unclear Meaning of Blood NAD+

A particularly important point: even if a supplement increases NAD+ markers in blood, we do not automatically know whether this applies to relevant target tissues such as muscle, brain, blood vessels, or liver. It is also unclear what an optimal NAD+ value in humans would be. There is no established clinical threshold that would allow us to say: this person needs NAD+ supplementation.

Mechanistic Plausibility Is Not Clinical Efficacy

NAD+ is biologically important. That alone is not enough to justify a supplement recommendation. Many interventions look plausible at the molecular level and later fail on clinical endpoints. For this reason, NAD+ precursors should currently be seen as an interesting, but not yet conclusively assessed, research topic.

The evidence is still developing. Larger, longer, and more robust studies are needed to clarify the role of NAD+ supplements in preventive medicine. Anyone pursuing longevity strategies beyond biohacking marketing should be aware of this limitation.

When Is NAD+ Supplementation Useful, and When Is It Not?

Based on the current evidence, taking an NAD+ supplement is not a general recommendation for everyone. It is an experimental intervention that appears more plausible in some situations than others, but it is not yet supported by hard clinical endpoints.

Who Might Theoretically Be More Relevant for Supplementation?

Current research points to the following groups, without allowing a clear recommendation:

People Around 45 to 50 Years and Older

Since NAD+ levels may decline with age in certain tissues and cell types, it is biologically plausible that supplementation could be more relevant in this age group than in young, healthy people. How strong this effect is in an individual cannot be determined reliably without standardized measurement and clinical context. It is also not proven that increasing NAD+ markers in this group improves hard health outcomes.

People With Metabolic Challenges

People with overweight, prediabetes, or early insulin resistance may theoretically be among the groups in which effects on insulin sensitivity deserve further study. The NMN study in postmenopausal women with prediabetes provides a signal for this. Whether the finding applies to other groups remains open.

People With Mildly Elevated Blood Pressure or Arterial Stiffness

For them, the signals from the NR pilot study may be relevant. Again, the data are interesting, but too weak for a broad clinical recommendation. Blood pressure, arterial stiffness, and cardiovascular risk should primarily be assessed and treated according to established standards.

When Is Supplementation Probably Not Useful?

Young, healthy, and active people under 35 currently have no good evidence base for relevant benefit from NAD+ precursors. Supplementation probably does not provide a meaningful advantage here, at least this cannot be derived from current human evidence.

Caution is also warranted for people hoping to fix fatigue, brain fog, poor recovery, or non-specific symptoms through NAD+ alone. These symptoms can have many possible causes. Without diagnostics, NAD+ supplementation in such cases is closer to guessing than prevention.

Safety Aspects and Interactions

NMN and NR appear mostly safe and well tolerated in the doses studied in short-term trials. Mild side effects such as nausea, gastrointestinal complaints, or headaches have occasionally been reported.

What is missing are long-term data. Researchers discuss whether chronically high NAD+ availability could theoretically support the growth of existing but undetected tumors, since cancer cells also have high energy and NAD+ demands. Human studies have not shown evidence for this concern so far. At the same time, the current evidence is insufficient to reliably judge long-term oncological safety. People with active cancer, a cancer history, or a strong family cancer burden should consider supplementation only after medical consultation.

Without Baseline Data, Supplementation Is Guesswork

The most important point: without individual health data, the decision for or against an NAD+ supplement remains a guess.

Do you have insulin resistance?

Do you know your blood pressure and arterial stiffness values?

How high are your inflammatory markers?

Are there signs of liver, kidney, or metabolic problems?

Without this information, you do not know whether you belong to a group in which NAD+ precursors might theoretically be more plausible. Perhaps your metabolic profile is completely normal. Perhaps you have pronounced insulin resistance that should primarily be addressed through nutrition, exercise, sleep, weight management, or medical treatment before thinking about supplements.

Another important point: even an NAD+ measurement would not be a simple solution at this stage. NAD+ can be measured in different compartments, such as whole blood, plasma, serum, PBMCs, or tissue. These values are not interchangeable. There is also no established clinical target value that clearly shows who should supplement and who should not.

Diagnostics come before intervention. This principle separates clinical preventive medicine from the unregulated context in which NAD infusions are often marketed, including NAD detox claims.

Which Biomarkers Should You Measure Before Taking NAD+?

Before investing money in an NAD+ supplement, it is worth investing in concrete knowledge about your body. A standard blood count is not enough for this. You need a comprehensive baseline that shows where your potential weak points are.

These biomarkers do not prove that you need NAD+. They help assess your metabolic and cardiovascular starting point and identify more important issues.

Metabolic Panel

HOMA-IR

A practical surrogate marker for estimating insulin resistance long before fasting glucose rises. The gold standard for measuring insulin sensitivity would be the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp, which is rarely used in routine clinical practice. Since individual NMN studies have investigated effects on insulin sensitivity, this value is useful. An elevated HOMA-IR does not automatically mean that NAD+ supplementation is the right intervention.

Fasting Glucose and HbA1c

These provide information about long-term glucose control.

Lipid Profile Including ApoB

ApoB is a more precise marker of atherosclerotic risk than standard LDL cholesterol alone.

Inflammatory Markers

High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein (hs-CRP)

Chronic low-grade inflammation can accompany aging processes and may be linked to NAD+ metabolism. An elevated hs-CRP value may indicate that inflammation drivers, lifestyle factors, or metabolic causes should first be assessed. Whether elevated hs-CRP makes NAD+ supplementation more useful has not been clinically proven.

Cardiovascular Markers

NT-proBNP

A sensitive marker of cardiac stress. Depending on age, symptoms, and risk profile, this value can be a useful addition to cardiovascular diagnostics.

Blood Pressure and Arterial Stiffness

Since NR showed positive signals for blood pressure and arterial stiffness in a small pilot study, baseline values are especially relevant if supplementation is being considered from a cardiovascular perspective. These values do not replace established cardiovascular risk assessment.

Liver and Kidney Values

Every supplement is processed through metabolic and elimination pathways. Normal liver and kidney function should be confirmed before regular intake.

These markers provide a detailed picture of metabolic and cardiovascular health. They help you and your doctor decide whether NAD+ supplementation should be discussed at all, or whether other measures, such as improving HOMA-IR through dietary changes, should take priority. This data-based approach is central to modern preventive medicine and part of a well-founded assessment of biological aging.

The YEARS Approach: Diagnostics Before Intervention

At YEARS, we follow this principle consistently. No supplement is recommended before a complete medical baseline has been created. The YEARS Core® program is designed for exactly this. In a single day, we analyze more than 87 biomarkers, including all of those mentioned above, combined with functional diagnostics such as 12-lead ECG, body plethysmography, and measurement of arterial stiffness.

The result is not a lab sheet, but a 60-page medically interpreted health report. In the subsequent strategy consultation, we discuss individual risks and develop a personalized plan. Only then can the question of targeted supplements such as NAD+ be assessed meaningfully, if at all, as a secondary and experimental option within an overall concept.

Conclusion: NAD+ Is Not a Miracle Molecule, but a Legitimate Research Topic With a Lot of Marketing Hype

The scientific discussion around NAD+ and its precursors is one of the interesting developments in aging research. The idea of influencing the age-related decline of this central molecule is biologically plausible and is partly supported by early human studies at the level of blood markers and selected surrogate endpoints.

An NAD+ supplement does not replace exercise, healthy nutrition, good sleep, or proper medical diagnostics. The evidence is still young, the studies are small, long-term data are missing, and hard endpoints have not been proven. At present, taking NMN or NR should be viewed as an experimental measure that may be more plausible for certain groups than for others, but not as a general longevity recommendation.

Do not act blindly. Before investing in an expensive supplement, invest in knowledge about your body. Only when you know your individual risks and metabolic state can you make informed decisions. Measure first, act second.

This article is for general information only and does not replace individual medical advice. The decision to take dietary supplements should always be made in consultation with a physician.

Sources

Covarrubias, A. J., Perrone, R., Grozio, A., & Verdin, E. (2021). NAD+ metabolism and its roles in cellular processes during ageing. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 22(2), 119–141. doi: 10.1038/s41580-020-00313-x

Dollerup, O. L., Christensen, B., Svart, M., Schmidt, M. S., Sulek, K., Ringgaard, S., Stødkilde-Jørgensen, H., Møller, N., Brenner, C., Treebak, J. T., & Jessen, N. (2018). A randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial of nicotinamide riboside in obese men: safety, insulin-sensitivity, and lipid-mobilizing effects. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 108(2), 343–353. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy132

Dollerup, O. L., Chubanava, S., Agerholm, M., Søndergård, S. D., Altıntaş, A., Møller, A. B., Høyer, K. F., Ringgaard, S., Stødkilde-Jørgensen, H., Lavery, G. G., Barrès, R., Larsen, S., Prats, C., Jessen, N., & Treebak, J. T. (2020). Nicotinamide riboside does not alter mitochondrial respiration, content or morphology in skeletal muscle from obese and insulin-resistant men. The Journal of Physiology, 598(4), 731–754. doi: 10.1113/JP278752

Freeberg, K. A., Egan, J. M., & Mazzola, P. N. (2023). Dietary supplementation with NAD+-boosting compounds in humans: Current knowledge and future directions. Nutrition Reviews, 81(9), 1049–1065. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuad047

Grozio, A., Mills, K. F., Yoshino, J., Bruzzone, S., Sociali, G., Tokizane, K., Lei, H. C., Cunningham, R., Sasaki, Y., Migaud, M. E., Caudill, M. A., Yoshino, M., Imai, S. I., & Ratajczak, J. (2019). Slc12a8 is a nicotinamide mononucleotide transporter. Nature Metabolism, 1(1), 47–57. doi: 10.1038/s42255-018-0009-4

Igarashi, M., Nakagawa-Nagahama, Y., Miura, M., Kashiwabara, K., Yaku, K., Sawada, M., Sekine, R., Fukamizu, Y., Sato, T., Kaisho, T., Nakagawa, T., & Imai, S. I. (2022). Chronic nicotinamide mononucleotide supplementation elevates blood nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide levels and alters muscle function in healthy older men. npj Aging, 8(1), 5. doi: 10.1038/s41514-022-00084-z

Irie, J., Inagaki, E., Fujita, M., Nakaya, H., Mitsuishi, M., Yamaguchi, S., Yamashita, K., Shigaki, S., Ono, T., Yukioka, H., Okano, H., Nabeshima, Y. I., Igarashi, M., Yasui, M., & Itoh, H. (2020). Effect of oral administration of nicotinamide mononucleotide on clinical parameters and nicotinamide metabolite levels in healthy Japanese men. Endocrine Journal, 67(2), 153–160. doi: 10.1507/endocrj.EJ19-0313

Martens, C. R., Denman, B. A., Mazzo, M. R., Armstrong, M. L., Reisdorph, N., McQueen, M. B., Chonchol, M., & Seals, D. R. (2018). Chronic nicotinamide riboside supplementation is well-tolerated and elevates NAD+ in healthy middle-aged and older adults. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1286. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03421-7

Vinten, K. T., Trętowicz, M. M., Coskun, E., van Weeghel, M., Cantó, C., Zapata-Pérez, R., Janssens, G. E., & Houtkooper, R. H. (2025). NAD+ precursor supplementation in human ageing: clinical evidence and challenges. Nature Metabolism, 7(10), 1974–1990. doi: 10.1038/s42255-025-01387-7

Yi, L., Maier, A. B., Tao, R., Lin, Z., Vaidya, A., Pendse, S., Thasma, S., Andhalkar, N., Avhad, G., & Kumbhar, V. (2023). The efficacy and safety of β-nicotinamide mononucleotide supplementation in healthy middle-aged adults: A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-dependent clinical trial. GeroScience, 45, 29–43. doi: 10.1007/s11357-022-00705-1

Yoshino, M., Yoshino, J., Kayser, B. D., Patti, G. J., Franczyk, M. P., Mills, K. F., Sindelar, M., Pietka, T., Patterson, B. W., Imai, S. I., & Klein, S. (2021). Nicotinamide mononucleotide increases muscle insulin sensitivity in prediabetic women. Science, 372(6547), 1224–1229. doi: 10.1126/science.abe9985