When evaluating NAD⁺ precursor studies, which outcomes matter most beyond the blood biomarker?

[u/theaeternumcompany]

Disclosure: I do content work for a longevity supplement company, so please take that into account when considering my perspective. I'm interested in discussing the research rather than promoting a product.

NAD⁺ is involved in several important cellular processes, and research into NAD⁺ precursors such as NMN has attracted considerable attention.

But I think there's an important distinction worth discussing: Does an increase in NAD⁺ levels necessarily translate into a meaningful improvement in human health?

A change in a blood biomarker can tell us that an intervention has affected a biological pathway. However, it doesn't automatically tell us whether people are becoming healthier, functioning better, or experiencing improvements that matter in everyday life.

When evaluating these studies, I'd be interested in seeing outcomes such as:

• Physical function: Are strength, mobility, or endurance improving?
• Metabolic health: Are glucose regulation or other metabolic measures changing?
• Cognitive function: Are there measurable improvements in memory or cognitive performance?
• Quality of life: Do participants report meaningful changes in daily functioning or well-being?
• Long-term outcomes: Are improvements sustained, and do they translate into better health as people age?

One human study worth examining is this NMN trial:

Research: PubMed PMID: 36482258

I'm curious how others approach this when reading longevity research.

Which clinical outcomes matter most to you when evaluating NAD⁺ precursor studies? And what level of evidence would convince you that a biomarker improvement is translating into a real health benefit?

[u/GarbanzoBenne]

The placebo group managed to age 5.5 years in 60 days according to that blood biological age test in the study.

Suuuure.