About / editorial
An independent, evidence-graded reading of the NAD+ record
What this project is, how it grades the literature, and the lines it does not cross.
What Legit NAD is
Legit NAD is an independent editorial project that publishes summaries of the peer-reviewed research literature on NAD+ and its precursors. We are not a clinic. We do not employ clinicians and we do not provide medical advice. We do not manufacture, sell, or distribute any product, and we do not endorse any commercial supplement or brand. Our work is editorial commentary on publicly available science.
Why "legit," and what it does not mean
The name signals the editorial stance: a due-diligence reading that asks of each NAD+ claim whether the evidence actually backs it. "Legit" here is a position we occupy relative to the literature - sorting what is established from what is marketed - not a claim that we verify, certify, or vouch for any product, seller, or treatment. We do not run a pharmacy, a telehealth service, or a prescribing pathway, and nothing on this site is for sale. NAD+ is a dietary supplement and an endogenous coenzyme, not a prescription medicine, and we never imply otherwise.
How we grade the evidence
The site is organized around evidence tier rather than persuasion. Randomized human trials (for example, oral NMN and NR dose-dependently raising blood NAD+ [3][4]) are marked as established. Mechanistic and genetic findings in cells and animals are marked preclinical. Observations, mixed functional endpoints and the open translation question are marked preliminary. And marketplace and safety cautions - the contested NMN supplement-status dispute, supplement-purity variability, the IV/compounded endotoxin recall - are marked as cautions and kept visible rather than buried [16]. The aim is that a reader can see at a glance how far the evidence behind any statement actually reaches.
What we cite
We cite primary sources: peer-reviewed journals (Science, Cell Metabolism, GeroScience, Nature Metabolism, Nature Communications, Scientific Reports), with PubMed links and DOIs on the study references page. Where the human data are thin or the strongest evidence is preclinical, we say so plainly. We do not fill gaps with speculation, and we do not translate a blood-NAD+ result into a health claim the study did not make.