NAD+ supplements and IV therapy: what the hype gets wrong

What did @millennialagingexpert actually say?

The creator's central argument is that NAD, made famous by celebrities like Hailey Bieber spending heavily on IV drips, helps with "reproduction of your skin cells" and "bringing collagen production back." They go further, saying NAD means you "won't need" retinol or Botox, and close with a product pitch for a topical NAD+ skincare line.

To be fair, they framed this as a simplified take and promised a "proper scientific breakdown" in part two. But the claims still need to be examined on their merits, because 41,000 viewers aren't waiting for a follow-up. The casual endorsement of celebrity drip culture, combined with a direct product recommendation, is doing a lot of persuasive work without much scientific scaffolding underneath it.

Does the science back this up?

Partially, but with significant caveats the creator skipped entirely. NAD+ (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide) is a real coenzyme involved in cellular energy metabolism, DNA repair, and sirtuin activation. The decline of NAD+ with age is documented and has driven serious research interest.

Guarente and colleagues have published extensively on sirtuin pathways and NAD+ metabolism, establishing a plausible biological link between NAD+ levels and aging processes at the cellular level. Research by Rajman, Chwalek, and Sinclair (2018, Cell Metabolism) outlines how NAD+ precursors like NMN and NR can restore NAD+ levels in animal models with measurable effects on metabolic function.

The collagen angle is murkier. There is some evidence that NAD+ supports fibroblast function, which matters for collagen synthesis. A 2021 study in Aging Cell (Covarrubias et al.) showed NAD+ supplementation in aged mice improved several markers of tissue function. But "brings collagen back" as stated by the creator is a leap from what the human clinical data actually shows. Most human trials on oral NAD+ precursors are short, small, and focused on systemic metabolic markers, not skin collagen specifically.

What did they get wrong (or right)?

The biggest problem is the claim that NAD means you "won't need" retinol or Botox. That is not supported by any peer-reviewed evidence. Retinoids have decades of robust clinical trial data for photoaging and collagen remodeling. Saying NAD can replace them is not skeptical simplification. It is overclaiming.

The creator also glosses over a real distinction between IV NAD+ administration and topical NAD+ skincare. IV infusions deliver NAD+ systemically and bypass absorption barriers entirely. Topical NAD+ faces a fundamental problem: NAD+ is a large, charged molecule with poor skin penetration. A 2020 review in the Journal of Controlled Release (Pham et al.) noted that topical delivery of large hydrophilic molecules remains a formidable challenge. The product being pitched is topical, not IV, and the creator conflates the two delivery methods without acknowledging the difference.

What they got right: NAD+ does decline with age, and that decline does affect cellular repair processes. That part is legitimate biology, not influencer fiction.

What should you actually know?

If you are curious about NAD+ for aging, here is the honest picture. Oral precursors like NMN and NR have more practical evidence behind them than IV drips for most healthy people, and they are dramatically cheaper. A 2022 trial by Yi et al. in Nature Aging found NMN supplementation improved muscle insulin sensitivity and physical performance in older adults. That is meaningful, though it is a long way from "never aging."

IV NAD+ therapy is not FDA-approved for anti-aging, costs hundreds to thousands of dollars per session, and the evidence supporting it over oral supplementation is thin. The celebrity endorsement circuit is not a substitute for a clinical trial.

Topical NAD+ skincare is the least proven tier of this entire category. It may have some antioxidant benefit given that niacinamide (a related compound) has a good evidence base for skin brightening and barrier support. But marketing a topical NAD+ product by referencing IV drip research is a category error that should raise your eyebrow, not your credit card.

If you are interested in skin aging support, talk to a dermatologist or telehealth provider about evidence-backed options before spending on products promoted primarily through TikTok hype.