NAD+ Sub-Q vs IV — efficacy gap is real or imagined

Sub-Q at 100mg 2x/week covers general longevity use. IV is overkill unless you're running clinical-dose protocols for addiction or neurodegenerative stuff.

Sub-Q is slower release and you avoid the acute IV flush. For chronic support it's arguably better. For acute high-dose loading, IV wins.

PK data for Sub-Q NAD+ is limited but extrapolating from pyridine nucleotide class, Sub-Q gives a broader AUC with lower peak vs IV. For longevity use case, probably equivalent or better.

Thanks all. Going to stay Sub-Q. The IV clinics charge 3-5x for a marginal acute difference that isn't the use case I need.

yeah sub-q is fine for what most people actually need. the iv clinic marketing is real strong but unless you're doing like 500mg+ protocols or trying to reverse actual damage, you're just paying for the experience of feeling like you're doing something more serious. i did both for a year and honestly couldn't tell the difference on any markers that mattered to me.

honestly the whole sub-q vs iv thing feels overblown when most people aren't even consistent with basic stuff like sleep and training. i ran sub-q for like 6 months and switched back to nothing just to see if i could tell and literally couldn't on any metric that mattered. which is wild bc i was spending money on it lol. at that point you're just paying for the ritual of it, the feeling that you're Doing Science™ at home with a needle. not saying don't do it but yeah the marketing around IV clinics is nuts when the actual data gap is pretty small for the use case most people have.