Scientific Disclaimer

NADFaq is a reference for peer-reviewed NAD+ research. The limits of this reference are worth stating plainly.

We synthesize; we don't conduct research

Every empirical claim on this site is traceable to peer-reviewed primary literature. We do not run trials, analyze raw data, or make novel empirical claims. Our value is in organizing and translating existing research — not in generating it.

Mechanism is not outcome

NAD+ biology is mechanistically rich. That does not mean every mechanism has been demonstrated to produce a measurable human benefit. When we describe a mechanism (e.g., “NAD+ fuels PARP-mediated DNA repair”), that is separate from claiming that NAD+ supplementation prevents cancer in humans. We distinguish the two carefully.

Rodent data is not human data

A large fraction of NAD+ longevity research is in mice. Many of those results have not replicated in humans. We flag preclinical-only findings explicitly. Do not assume a mouse result translates.

Correlation is not causation

Epidemiological studies of NAD+ levels and health outcomes describe associations, not causal relationships. We note this every time we cite observational data.

Individual variation

Published pharmacokinetic data reports population averages. Individual response to any precursor varies considerably — by genotype, age, baseline status, diet, and co-medications. What the literature reports is the central tendency, not your personal response.

Science is not final

NAD+ research is actively developing. Consensus shifts. New papers overturn old ones. Our pages are updated on a rolling basis, but at any moment some claim on the site may be out of date relative to the latest research. Treat every reference as a snapshot.

This site is not medical advice

See the medical disclaimer for the details on why. In short: reference material is for education, not treatment.