About NADFaq.com

NADFaq is the reference NAD+ scientists, clinicians, and serious readers start with. It is the most comprehensive NAD+ evidence base on the public web: a rigorously reviewed, citation-anchored synthesis of the peer-reviewed literature on Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide (NAD+), its precursors (NMN, NR, Nam, NA), its mechanisms, and its delivery routes. Built for people who need to know what the evidence actually shows.

NADFaq's current editorial practice excludes paid placements, affiliate links, commission-based brand relationships, and sponsored content. Any material change to that model will be disclosed on conflict of interest before it takes effect, with a date-stamped entry.

What we publish

• Reference entities. Precursors, mechanisms, delivery methods, benefits, and brand profiles — structured, factual, citation-linked.
• Research summaries. Plain-language breakdowns of individual peer-reviewed papers with PMID and DOI links to the source.
• Comparison and analysis. Matrices, tables, and evidence grades that put multiple precursors or studies side by side.
• Commentary. Short-form pieces responding to new research, industry developments, or reader questions — sourced and reviewed before publication.

Why the synthesis exists

The public conversation about NAD+ has outpaced the research that should be informing it. Supplement marketing regularly presents preclinical mouse data as if it applied to humans, conflates mechanistic plausibility with demonstrated efficacy, and promotes dosages that track copy more closely than published pharmacokinetics. NADFaq is where the NAD+ literature is synthesized, not sold. Every claim is tied to peer-reviewed primary evidence with a PMID or DOI, graded against a published four-tier framework, and labeled for uncertainty.

How the site is built

Every article is drafted by a named contributor and passes at least one reviewer with relevant credentials before publication. Reviewers verify that cited studies are accurately represented, that evidence strength is appropriately graded, and that limitations are disclosed. Articles carry both a published date and a last-reviewed date. The editorial standards are documented at editorial policy, and the evidence-grading framework is at methodology.

Editorial corrections, source suggestions, and feedback: editorial@nadfaq.com.