If you are looking for more energy, better sleep or a clearer head, a higher number in a blood test is probably not the goal in itself. You want to feel a difference in your life.
This small NAD+ trial is a useful example of why I keep those two things separate.
Five days, one particular product
Kornilov and colleagues’ GeroScience paper, published on 30 July 2026, tested a proprietary oral formulation called LNAD+ in adults aged 45–75. Sixty people were assigned by chance to the product or placebo. Neither participants nor researchers knew which they were receiving. Fifty people were included in the main analysis. [1]
The treatment lasted five days. Researchers distinguished NAD measured inside cells in whole blood from NAD measured in plasma, the liquid part of blood.
What changed?
At day six, the intracellular NAD measurement was 53% higher than with placebo. Plasma NAD did not show a significant increase. [1]
The trial also looked at clinical measures, wellbeing and information from wearable devices. None of those additional outcomes remained statistically significant after the researchers allowed for the number of comparisons they had made.
So 53% higher NAD does not mean 53% more energy, better sleep or improved health.
Why allow for lots of comparisons?
If you look at enough outcomes, a few differences can appear interesting just by chance. The adjustment helps avoid mistaking those for a convincing benefit.
This short study did not establish better wellbeing. It also cannot prove that a benefit is impossible. That is a reason for another question, rather than a promise either way.
What would I want to see next?
The trial was registered after it had begun, and several authors disclosed consultancy, ownership or other commercial interests. [1] Those details matter when reading the result, although they do not automatically invalidate it.
Five days cannot settle long-term benefit or safety. Nor can findings for LNAD+ be transferred to every oral product, NMN, NR or infusion. This trial does not establish treatment for menopause symptoms, ADHD, migraine or addiction.
I would like to see longer, independent studies that ask whether people feel and function better.
My question for the next headline
What was measured, for how long, in how many people and with which exact product? Then: is the benefit being advertised actually in the results, or only in the explanation of how the molecule might work?
Read the original sources
- Kornilov and colleagues: oral LNAD+ and intracellular NAD in a randomised controlled trial ↗GeroScience · 30 July 2026 · Trial report, methods, results and disclosures reviewed. PubMed abstract and disclosures ↗. A short study of a proprietary formulation, with retrospective registration.