NAD+ shots vs IV drips: what the evidence actually says

What did @rhw_brownsboro actually say?

The creator, appearing to work at a clinic called Restore, ran through a side-by-side comparison of two NAD+ delivery formats. Shots are intramuscular, "125 milligrams per shot," administered into the hip, and take about five minutes. IV drips run "500 or 750 milligrams" and can also be given as a "loading dose" of 2,000 milligrams over five to six days. The pitch is straightforward: shots are convenient, IVs are higher dose, and if you want "a drastic change" in how you feel or your "cognitive function," NAD is "an awesome option." The video ends with a call to book an appointment via DM or bio link.

This is a sales video with a light educational wrapper. That context matters when evaluating the claims. The creator is not a researcher presenting data. They are a clinic representative presenting service tiers. Knowing that changes how you should weigh what follows.

Does the science back this up?

Partially. NAD+ precursor research is real and growing, but the clinical evidence for injected or infused NAD+ in healthy adults is thin. Most of the compelling data involves NAD+ precursors like NMN or NR taken orally, not intravenous NAD+ itself.

A 2023 randomized controlled trial by Pencina et al. in the New England Journal of Medicine found that NMN supplementation raised NAD+ levels in muscle tissue but did not improve physical performance measures in middle-aged adults. That is a precursor study, not an IV study, but it illustrates the gap between raising NAD+ levels and producing meaningful functional outcomes. A 2020 review by Yoshino, Baur, and Imai in Cell Metabolism acknowledged that NAD+ metabolism is genuinely involved in aging biology but noted that human clinical data on NAD+ repletion therapies remains limited and inconsistent. The claim that IV NAD+ produces cognitive benefits is particularly under-evidenced. There are case reports and small pilot studies, but no large randomized trials in healthy adults. The "cognitive function" benefit the creator mentions is not established by the current clinical literature.

What did they get wrong (or right)?

Credit where it is due: the practical distinction between IM shots and IV drips is accurate. Intramuscular injections do deliver a lower volume more quickly, and IV infusions do allow for higher total doses. The description of IV NAD+ causing slow infusion times because of side effects like chest tightness and nausea, though the creator frames it as individual variation rather than a known tolerability issue, reflects real clinical experience. Slower infusion rates do reduce side effects.

What they got wrong: the framing that a "2,000 milligram loading dose" over five to six days is simply a tool for people who want "a drastic change" is irresponsible without mentioning that high-dose IV NAD+ carries real side effects. Published clinical experience, including work by Braidy et al. (2019, Antioxidants and Redox Signaling), notes that rapid IV NAD+ infusion commonly produces nausea, flushing, and chest discomfort. Calling 2,000 mg "a crazy amount" and then immediately following with a booking CTA is not a safety disclosure.

The cognitive benefit claim is the weakest part. Saying NAD+ can change "how you feel, your cognitive function" without qualification overstates what the evidence shows for intravenous NAD+ in otherwise healthy people.

What should you actually know?

NAD+ is a real coenzyme involved in cellular energy metabolism and DNA repair. The interest in NAD+ repletion as a longevity and recovery strategy is not fringe science. But there is a wide gap between promising preclinical data and the polished wellness-clinic pitch you are watching on TikTok.

A few things worth knowing before you book. First, compounded IV NAD+ is not FDA-approved as a drug for any indication. It is administered under practitioner discretion, which means the evidence bar for use is lower than for approved therapies. Second, the dose ranges mentioned in this video, especially 2,000 mg over multiple days, are not standardized. There is no peer-reviewed consensus on optimal dosing for healthy adults. Third, the cost of IV NAD+ therapy is significant and is rarely covered by insurance. Fourth, IM NAD+ injections are less studied than IV administration. The bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of intramuscular NAD+ in humans are not well characterized in published literature. If you are considering NAD+ therapy, ask your provider what specific outcome they are treating, what evidence supports that outcome, and what monitoring they provide. A clinic that only answers with a booking link is not giving you enough information.