We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
My prediction is that first NAD is not a an extracellular molecule. NAD does not exist or almost does not exist at all in the plasma. It is an intracellular and as I mentioned you know high concentration in the mitochondria somewhat much lower in the cytoplasm in the nucleus. So the whole idea of injecting intravenous NAD is first it's too big to be absorbed by cells.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So the whole idea of injecting intravenous NAD is first it's too big to be absorbed by cells. So what is the body doing with it? There is a famous paper by uh Josh Benovitz Robinovitz that showed that if you inject it actually introvenously you actually get it mostly calibed by the liver into nicotinomide.
Well, it's going to break down. I mean, half of the molecular weight or 40 or some percent of the molecular weight of NAD is NR. So it's going to break down into um you know so it'll be digested and deliver presumably deliver some small fraction of the total molecular weight as an NAD booster.