NAD+ IV vs. oral supplements: what the evidence actually shows

What did @thesolbonita.spa actually say?

The creator, who identifies as "Dr. Banjia Wojica" and claims to be an "ephrologist" (likely meaning nephrologist) with over 20 years of experience, made a straightforward case: NAD+ IV therapy beats oral supplements because it delivers "higher concentrations" faster and bypasses the unpredictability of individual gut absorption. She didn't trash oral NAD+ outright, calling it "not a negative thing," but concluded she always recommends intravenous delivery. The video is short, casual, and light on citations, which is exactly what makes it worth scrutinizing.

Notably, the transcript contains a credential error worth flagging upfront. She says "ephrologist," which isn't a recognized medical specialty. If she meant nephrologist, that's a kidney specialist, not an obvious authority on cellular metabolism or IV nutrient therapy. That doesn't automatically invalidate her points, but credentials matter when you're recommending a medical procedure.

Does the science back this up?

The IV-vs-oral bioavailability argument has real scientific grounding, but the story on NAD+ is more complicated than she lets on. Oral NAD+ precursors, specifically nicotinamide riboside (NR) and nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN), have been shown in multiple human trials to meaningfully raise blood NAD+ levels.

A 2016 study by Trammell et al. in Nature Communications demonstrated that a single oral dose of NR raised whole-blood NAD+ in healthy adults. A 2019 randomized trial by Martens et al. in Nature Communications confirmed that 300mg/day of NR over 6 weeks increased NAD+ metabolites in older adults. These aren't small effects. The claim that oral supplements produce uncertain concentrations is partially true due to individual gut variability, but it overstates the unpredictability. For many people, oral precursors work measurably well.

IV NAD+ does bypass absorption entirely and can produce rapid, high plasma concentrations. But peer-reviewed clinical trial data specifically comparing IV NAD+ to oral NAD+ precursors in humans is thin. Most IV NAD+ evidence comes from addiction medicine contexts, not general longevity use. The bioavailability advantage is real in principle; the clinical superiority claim is not well-established.

What did they get wrong (or right)?

She gets partial credit on bioavailability. IV delivery does produce faster and more predictable plasma concentrations than oral ingestion, and gut absorption variability is a genuine pharmacological reality. These are not controversial points.

Where she goes wrong is the implied conclusion: that oral NAD+ supplementation produces uncertain or insufficient results. The literature on NR and NMN specifically contradicts this. These precursors are not the same as taking NAD+ directly, because NAD+ itself is poorly absorbed orally due to its molecular size. But she doesn't distinguish between taking NAD+ directly versus taking precursors like NMN or NR, and that distinction matters enormously for consumer decisions.

She also says she "always" recommends IV NAD+, presented as a blanket professional preference. That's a strong clinical stance with weak public evidence behind it. IV infusions carry real risks: phlebitis, infection risk, cardiovascular strain during rapid infusion, and significant cost. A 2021 review by Mehmel et al. in Nutrients noted that while IV NAD+ is used clinically, robust comparative trial data against oral precursors in healthy populations is lacking. Recommending IV as a default without that context is overselling it.

What should you actually know?

If you're considering NAD+ supplementation, here's what the current evidence actually supports. Oral NMN and NR, not raw NAD+, are the forms that have been studied in human trials and shown to raise NAD+ levels. A 2023 randomized controlled trial by Yi et al. in GeroScience found that 300mg/day of NMN improved muscle insulin sensitivity in prediabetic women. That's a meaningful clinical outcome from an oral supplement.

IV NAD+ is a real clinical tool used in some addiction treatment protocols and longevity clinics, but it is expensive, requires medical supervision, and can cause side effects during infusion including nausea, chest tightness, and flushing. These risks aren't mentioned in the video.

The framing of NAD+ as a "revolutionary, new, sexy supplement" also deserves pushback. NAD+ itself was discovered in the early 1900s. The longevity angle has been active in research since David Sinclair's lab published on sirtuins and NAD+ in the mid-2000s. It's not new; it's newly marketed.

FormBlends does not recommend specific protocols or doses. If you're interested in NAD+ therapy, talk to a licensed provider who can review your individual health status, not a 60-second TikTok.