Can NAD+ supplements fix jowls, hooded eyes, and crow's feet?

What did @elite.wellness actually say?

The creator, identifying as an RN, claims NAD is "the reason all your favorite celebrities look 10 to 15 years younger" and that a specific supplement called Catacor uses liposomal NAD that is "nine times more absorbent" and "nine times stronger than anything else on the market." She says NAD directly addresses jowls, hooded eyes, deep smile lines, and crow's feet, and that people see skin improvements "as soon as a few weeks after" starting the product. The credential framing matters here. An RN recommending a specific branded product while dismissing competitors as glorified urine is a sales pitch in a lab coat. The hashtag #resultsmayvary is doing a lot of heavy lifting on a 7.8 million view video.

Does the science back this up?

Partially, but not where it counts for her claims. NAD+ is a real coenzyme central to cellular energy metabolism, DNA repair, and sirtuin activation. Levels do decline with age. That is well-established (Verdin, 2015, Science). The problem is the distance between "NAD+ matters at a cellular level" and "it will fix your jowls." Jowls result from bone resorption, fat pad descent, and ligament laxity. No randomized controlled trial demonstrates that oral NAD+ supplementation reverses those structural changes. The most relevant human data uses NAD+ precursors like NMN and NR, not direct NAD+ itself, and those trials show modest improvements in muscle function and some metabolic markers in older adults (Yoshino et al., 2021, Science). Skin-specific outcome data from oral supplementation? Essentially absent in peer-reviewed literature.

What did they get wrong (or right)?

She got the biology of NAD+ decline roughly correct. Credit where it is due. The observation that NAD+ precursors face bioavailability challenges from gastric acid is also a legitimate concern researchers have noted (Airhart et al., 2017, PLOS ONE). Where she goes off the rails is the product-specific claims. The "nine times more absorbent" figure has no cited source, no clinical trial backing it, and reads like marketing copy pulled from the brand's own materials. Liposomal delivery does improve bioavailability for some compounds, but "nine times stronger than anything else on the market" is a comparative efficacy claim that requires head-to-head trial data. There is none publicly available for Catacor. Calling NAD an "enzyme" is also technically wrong. It is a coenzyme, a cofactor. Small error, but if you are leaning on your RN credential to sell supplements, accuracy matters.

What should you actually know?

NAD+ precursor supplementation, specifically NR and NMN, has a growing evidence base for metabolic and perhaps cognitive benefits, but the research is still early and the translation to cosmetic outcomes like jowls or hooded eyes has not been demonstrated. IV NAD+ infusions exist and are used in some clinical contexts, but the evidence base for anti-aging aesthetics specifically is not strong enough to justify the cost she cites. Liposomal delivery is a legitimate formulation strategy used across various supplements and pharmaceuticals, but it is not a magic multiplier that makes one brand categorically superior to all others. Any creator claiming a single supplement addresses structural facial aging features like jowls is making a claim the current evidence cannot support, regardless of their credentials or how many celebrities allegedly use it.

Is there a conflict of interest here?

Almost certainly. The video uses the hashtag #catakor (the brand she recommends), promotes a TikTok Shop link, and frames every competitor negatively while positioning one product as uniquely superior. This is a classic affiliate or sponsored content structure. The FTC requires clear disclosure of material connections between creators and brands. A vague hashtag buried in a caption on a 7.8 million view video does not meet that standard. Viewers should treat this video as an advertisement, not a clinical recommendation.