About NADFaq.com

NADFaq.com exists because the public-facing conversation about Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide (NAD+) has become distorted by the supplement industry's incentives to sell rather than to explain. Our mission is simple: translate the peer-reviewed research on NAD+, its precursors (NMN, NR, Nam, NA), and its supporting biology into reference material that is accurate, readable, and free of commercial conflict.

What we publish

Every page on this site falls into one of four categories:

• 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 / DOI links to the source.
• Comparison and analysis. Matrices, tables, and evidence grades that put multiple precursors or studies side-by-side.
• Commentary (blog). Short-form pieces responding to new research, industry developments, or reader questions — always sourced and always reviewed before publication.

What we don't do

• We do not accept payment, commission, samples, or promotional consideration from supplement brands.
• We do not run affiliate links. If we recommend a product on editorial grounds, the recommendation is unpaid.
• We do not provide medical advice. We provide reference material. Use it to have a better conversation with your clinician.

Why this site exists

The public conversation about NAD+ has outpaced the research that should be informing it. Supplement brands have strong incentives to present preclinical mouse data as applicable to humans, to conflate mechanistic plausibility with demonstrated efficacy, and to promote dosages that track marketing copy more closely than published pharmacokinetics. Independent reference material that grades evidence honestly, labels uncertainty, and refuses affiliate revenue is genuinely scarce — and it is the specific gap NADFaq is built to fill. We exist to give readers, clinicians, and other writers a citation-anchored starting point that does not have a product to sell. The full funding and independence model is documented at conflict of interest.

Editorial team workflow

Every article on this site moves through a documented pipeline before it is published. A contributor submits an outline with intended citations; an editor reviews the outline against the evidence-grading framework at methodology; the draft is then reviewed by at least one additional contributor with relevant subject-matter credentials. Reviewers check whether cited studies are accurately represented, whether evidence strength is appropriately labeled, and whether confounders and limitations are disclosed. A final editorial pass handles readability, internal linking, and schema markup. Articles carry both an original-published date and a most-recent-reviewed date; corrections are annotated in a per-article changelog and credited to the reader or reviewer who flagged them.

How the site is built

Every article, reference, and comparison on NADFaq is drafted by a named contributor and reviewed by at least one other contributor with relevant credentials before publication. Our editorial standards are documented in the editorial policy, and our evidence-grading framework is in the methodology page.

Contact the team

Editorial corrections, source suggestions, and feedback: editorial@nadfaq.com. For press and partnership inquiries, see the contact page.