Why we don’t offer NAD⁺ therapies

TL;DR Summary

• NAD⁺ plays an important role in human biology, but more isn’t automatically better

• Increasing NAD⁺ activity affects core metabolic pathways involved in both health and disease

• Long-term safety data in healthy people are lacking - especially for elective use

• Route of delivery (injection, infusion, or oral supplements) does not remove uncertainty

• Some biological pathways supported by NAD⁺ are also relied upon by cancer cells

• Until clear long-term benefit and safety are demonstrated, we choose caution over trends

For now, our answer is no - not because the science is uninteresting, but because it isn’t yet complete.

——————————————————————

NAD⁺ has become heavily promoted in the longevity and aesthetics in recent years. It’s discussed in relation to energy, ageing, skin health, and “cellular optimisation”, and is available in many forms - from infusions and injections to oral supplements designed to raise or “recycle” NAD⁺ within the body.

At Growth Factor Hair Clinic, we’ve taken a cautious and evidence-led position.

At present, we do not recommend NAD⁺-boosting interventions for longevity or aesthetic purposes in otherwise healthy individuals.

This decision reflects how we understand biology, risk, and the current state of evidence.

What NAD⁺ does — and why more is not automatically better

NAD⁺ (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide) is essential to life. It plays a central role in:

• cellular energy production

• mitochondrial activity

• DNA repair

• responses to metabolic and oxidative stress

Because NAD⁺ levels tend to decline with age, it’s often assumed that increasing them must be beneficial.

But biological systems don’t work on a simple “more is better” principle.

The same pathways that support repair and resilience also participate - under different conditions - in inflammation, fibrosis, and uncontrolled cell growth.

This is why context, balance, and regulation matter.

When scientific language oversimplifies biology

NAD⁺-based products are often described using phrases such as “works at a cellular level” or “optimises metabolism”.

These expressions sound reassuring, but they are not explanations of risk or outcome.

Everything in the body operates at a cellular level - including disease processes. Supporting a cellular function in one context does not guarantee benefit in another.

Without long-term human data, these terms describe intent rather than established effect.

Delivery method matters — but doesn’t remove uncertainty

It’s tempting to assume that oral approaches to increasing NAD⁺ are inherently safer than injections or infusions.

While route of delivery does matter, it doesn’t eliminate the underlying issue.

Strategies designed to:

• raise NAD⁺ levels, or

• enhance NAD⁺ recycling and salvage pathways

still aim to amplify core metabolic signalling.

Whether this is achieved by injection, infusion, or oral supplementation, the biological goal is the same: increasing availability or activity within fundamental cellular systems.

Even when taken orally, these interventions:

• alter tightly regulated pathways

• may lead to sustained supraphysiological signalling

• lack long-term outcome data in healthy populations

Why cancer biology cannot be ignored

A key reason for caution is the role of NAD⁺ in cancer metabolism.

Many cancers rely heavily on NAD⁺-dependent processes to support:

• high energy demand

• rapid proliferation

• resistance to cellular stress

• DNA repair within malignant cells

For this reason, reducing NAD⁺ availability is being explored therapeutically in oncology.

This does not mean that increasing NAD⁺ causes cancer.

However, it does mean that enhancing fundamental metabolic pathways could plausibly support the survival or progression of existing malignant cells, depending on biological context.

Because early malignancy can exist long before it is clinically apparent, deliberately amplifying these pathways in healthy individuals raises legitimate safety questions, particularly in the absence of long-term data.

What human studies currently tell us

Human studies involving NAD⁺ precursors do exist. They generally show that NAD⁺ levels can be influenced over short periods and that interventions are often tolerated in research settings.

What they do not yet establish are:

• meaningful longevity outcomes

• durable aesthetic benefits

• long-term safety in healthy populations

• cancer or other late-emerging risks over time

Short-term tolerability does not equal long-term reassurance.

At present, there is insufficient evidence to confidently recommend NAD⁺-boosting strategies for elective use in people who are otherwise well.

When enthusiasm moves faster than evidence

Modulating metabolism can be beneficial in specific disease contexts.

That does not automatically make it appropriate for elective use.

Translating preclinical data, animal research, or disease-specific findings into healthy populations requires caution. People choosing these interventions should understand they are experimental.

Our position at Growth Factor Hair Clinic

Our clinical philosophy is simple:

If long-term benefit has not been demonstrated, and there is a biologically plausible risk of unintended harm, we choose not to intervene.

For now:

• longevity and aesthetic benefits remain unproven

• long-term safety data in healthy people are lacking

• biological complexity argues for restraint

For these reasons, we do not offer or recommend NAD⁺-boosting interventions — whether injectable or oral at this time.

This position reflects respect for biology, evidence, and patient safety, not resistance to innovation.

In summary

• Increasing core metabolic activity has wide-ranging effects

• Route of delivery does not remove uncertainty

• Responsible practice sometimes means waiting

We continue to follow the science closely. If robust, long-term human evidence emerges demonstrating clear benefit and safety, our approach will evolve accordingly.

Until then, caution remains the most evidence-based position.

——————————————————————

Medical information notice:

The information on this page is provided for general educational purposes only and reflects our current interpretation of the scientific literature. It is not intended as medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment, and should not replace personalised assessment by a qualified healthcare professional. Our views may evolve as new, high-quality human evidence emerges. Decisions about medical or wellness interventions should always be made in the context of individual health status, risk factors, and professional clinical guidance.