Liposomal NAD+ x cellular energy and mitochondrial vitality
research showsRENEWAL-NAD+ evaluated LathMized® NAD+ (LNAD+), a non-liposomal, physicochemically modulated formulation that alters supramolecular organization and solution behavior while preserving the native molecular structure of NAD+. It is included here only as a separate reference for direct oral NAD+, not as direct efficacy evidence for liposomal NAD+ products. Its results should not be generalized to liposomal products. The trial comparator was PEG placebo, not a liposomal product.
ads claimAdvertisements combine cellular energy, maximized absorption, mitochondrial activation, and healthy aging. The key leap is treating the intracellular role of NAD+ and general claims about liposomes as proof that the finished product works in humans.
Four separate assessment dimensions
| Effect direction and size | RENEWAL-NAD+ evaluated LathMized® NAD+ (LNAD+), a non-liposomal, physicochemically modulated formulation that alters supramolecular organization and solution behavior while preserving the native molecular structure of NAD+. It is included here only as a separate reference for direct oral NAD+, not as direct efficacy evidence for liposomal NAD+ products. Its results should not be generalized to liposomal products. The trial comparator was PEG placebo, not a liposomal product. |
|---|---|
| Evidence certainty | Publication status is updated. One trial is counted once; short follow-up, sponsor funding and registration/analysis-selection limitations remain. |
| Applicability | RENEWAL-NAD+ evaluated LathMized® NAD+ (LNAD+), a non-liposomal, physicochemically modulated formulation that alters supramolecular organization and solution behavior while preserving the native molecular structure of NAD+. It is included here only as a separate reference for direct oral NAD+, not as direct efficacy evidence for liposomal NAD+ products. Its results should not be generalized to liposomal products. The trial comparator was PEG placebo, not a liposomal product. |
| Safety | The legacy Unknown safety label is retained. Short-term tolerability does not establish long-term or liposomal-product safety. |
D/26 and subgrades C/D are historical values previously displayed for the liposomal NAD+ claim. They are not ratings of LNAD+ or the RENEWAL trial, nor newly validated liposomal efficacy scores after this formulation correction. Historical item-level calculations and deductions remain unverified; no numerical adjustment was invented.
Useful facts when choosing a product
- Korean cross-border marketplaces sell liposomal capsules and liquids claiming about 100-500 mg NAD+ per daily serving.
- Some products labeled NAD+ actually use NR or NMN as the main ingredient, while others contain NAD+ itself; the chemical name in Supplement Facts matters.
- One Codeage product provides 500 mg NAD+ plus 102.5 mg anhydrous betaine per two capsules, so it is not an NAD+-only product.
- Without product-specific data on liposome size, encapsulation efficiency, stability, and release after digestion, the word liposomal cannot establish comparative absorption.
Chamgap Semantic Classification Code
Candidate index · review held
UNK.liposomal-nad-plus.UNK.cellular-energy-and-mitochondrial-vitality.increase.placeboUnknown > Liposomal NAD+ > Unknown > cellular energy and mitochondrial vitality > Increase claim > Placebo
An automated migration candidate, not an issued permanent code; exact claim scope remains under review. This machine-generated migration candidate helps retrieval but is not a permanent assignment. The original verdict ID and URL remain authoritative.
What the research actually shows
RENEWAL-NAD+ evaluated LathMized® NAD+ (LNAD+), a non-liposomal, physicochemically modulated formulation that alters supramolecular organization and solution behavior while preserving the native molecular structure of NAD+. It is included here only as a separate reference for direct oral NAD+, not as direct efficacy evidence for liposomal NAD+ products. Its results should not be generalized to liposomal products. The trial comparator was PEG placebo, not a liposomal product.
RENEWAL-NAD+ randomized 60 healthy adults aged 45–75 in a short placebo-controlled trial. The dosed analysis set with blood sampling contained 51 participants; the primary analysis excluded one participant and included 50. The published report describes a 53% higher whole-blood NAD level versus placebo after treatment. Plasma NAD and secondary wellbeing, vital-sign, activity and sleep outcomes did not show significant differences after multiplicity correction.
The intervention was LathMized NAD+ powder containing NAD and PEG. Its results cannot be reassigned to a marketed liposomal NAD+ product. Whole-blood NAD predominantly reflects erythrocyte measurements, not a direct measure of muscle or brain mitochondrial function or everyday vitality. Short follow-up and limited power for secondary outcomes mean nonsignificance does not prove the complete absence of benefit.
Publication: GeroScience, July 30, 2026; DOI 10.1007/s11357-026-02399-1. The preprint description and its use as a current limitation have been removed. Sponsor funding, retrospective registration, short follow-up and product/outcome directness are separate issues. The paper states that an analysis plan preceded unblinding, while the exclusion of one participant from the primary analysis was decided after unblinding.
Registration dates are distinct: ClinicalTrials.gov records first submission on December 19, 2025, the first submission meeting quality-control criteria on January 4, 2026, and first public posting on January 13, 2026. The trial was conducted in 2022. The earlier phrase “registered January 4” has been corrected to distinguish these events.
The September 28 correction checked publication status and related interpretation, citations and dates. Access restrictions prevented a complete text-to-text comparison with the original preprint. No new systematic search of every liposomal product or reassessment of the entire historical evidence base was performed. The earlier search did not identify a direct product trial; that is not a universal claim that no such study exists anywhere.
D/26 and subgrades C/D are retained legacy values, not newly calculated scores. The historical axis-level calculation and any preprint-specific deduction could not be verified, so no points were inferred or restored. The legacy 26 is not a current fixed anchor and is not represented as a newly validated calculator result.
D/26 and subgrades C/D are historical values previously displayed for the liposomal NAD+ claim. They are not ratings of LNAD+ or the RENEWAL trial, nor newly validated liposomal efficacy scores after this formulation correction. Historical item-level calculations and deductions remain unverified; no numerical adjustment was invented.
Historical D/26: retention and interpretation limits
D/26 and subgrades C/D are historical values previously displayed for the liposomal NAD+ claim. They are not ratings of LNAD+ or the RENEWAL trial, nor newly validated liposomal efficacy scores after this formulation correction. Historical item-level calculations and deductions remain unverified; no numerical adjustment was invented.
Historical subgrades — not ratings of LNAD+
D/26 and subgrades C/D are historical values previously displayed for the liposomal NAD+ claim. They are not ratings of LNAD+ or the RENEWAL trial, nor newly validated liposomal efficacy scores after this formulation correction. Historical item-level calculations and deductions remain unverified; no numerical adjustment was invented.
| Historical claim | Retained grade | Applicability limit |
|---|---|---|
| Delivery to circulating or intracellular NAD+ pools (surrogate) | C | D/26 and subgrades C/D are historical values previously displayed for the liposomal NAD+ claim. They are not ratings of LNAD+ or the RENEWAL trial, nor newly validated liposomal efficacy scores after this formulation correction. Historical item-level calculations and deductions remain unverified; no numerical adjustment was invented. |
| Improved cellular energy, vitality, or wellbeing | D | D/26 and subgrades C/D are historical values previously displayed for the liposomal NAD+ claim. They are not ratings of LNAD+ or the RENEWAL trial, nor newly validated liposomal efficacy scores after this formulation correction. Historical item-level calculations and deductions remain unverified; no numerical adjustment was invented. |
Review performed and remaining limitations
Full preprint access was restricted; historical axis calculations and any specific point deduction remain unverified. Other historical research records were reused.
Other historical sources — directness specified by row
| Study | Design | Sample | Funding | Endpoint | Result | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Freeberg et al. 2023 | Narrative review | Human NAD+-boosting studies | Academic institutions | NAD+ concentrations and physiological function | Human studies mainly concern precursors, and whether raising NAD+ improves physiological function remains unclear. | Boundary |
| Khan AU et al. 2002 | Caco-2 cell experiment | No human participants; Caco-2 cell experiment | Unknown | Oxygen consumption after immune stimulation | Liposomal NAD+ preserved cellular oxygen consumption, but this was not a human absorption or efficacy trial. | Directness boundary |
Separate non-liposomal LNAD+ reference — not direct liposomal evidence
RENEWAL-NAD+ evaluated LathMized® NAD+ (LNAD+), a non-liposomal, physicochemically modulated formulation that alters supramolecular organization and solution behavior while preserving the native molecular structure of NAD+. It is included here only as a separate reference for direct oral NAD+, not as direct efficacy evidence for liposomal NAD+ products. Its results should not be generalized to liposomal products. The trial comparator was PEG placebo, not a liposomal product.
| Study | Design | Sample | Funding | Endpoint | Result | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kornilov SA et al. 2026 | Non-liposomal LNAD+ versus PEG placebo; Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled phase 0/1b RCT; published in GeroScience | 60 randomized; 51 in the dosed analysis set; 50 in the primary analysis | BioNADrx d.b.a. Bryleos; multiple authors had equity or advisory relationships | Whole-blood intracellular NAD, plasma NAD, wellbeing, vital signs, wearable activity, and sleep | Whole-blood NAD +53%; plasma NAD and clinical, wellbeing, activity and sleep secondary endpoints were not significant after correction. This does not prove absence of benefit. Reference from the same RENEWAL trial; not transferred to liposomal-product scoring. | Reference only; not direct liposomal evidence |
| NCT07336836 | Non-liposomal LNAD+ versus PEG placebo; Retrospectively registered short phase 0/1b RCT | Registered enrollment: 60 | BioNADrx Holdings, Inc. Bryleos | Intracellular and plasma NAD, multi-omics, and safety | Conducted in 2022; first submitted December 19, 2025; first quality-control-compliant submission January 4, 2026; first posted January 13, 2026. Retrospectively registered; not treated as a marketed liposomal product trial. Reference from the same RENEWAL trial; not transferred to liposomal-product scoring. | Reference only; not direct liposomal evidence |
Receipt — 5 References
Evidence access cutoff: 2026-09-30. Each citation states its actual access level (full-text transcription, abstract, index, or other) and remaining limitations. Bibliographic checking does not certify the study results or treatment efficacy.
Final verification and publication gate: Codex · Evidence date: 2026-09-30 · Corrections: 2
Formulation and evidence-attribution correction · 2026-09-30
Explicitly identified LNAD+ as non-liposomal and separated RENEWAL from direct key evidence for liposomal products. Corrected attribution in the title-adjacent notice, summary, separate reference table, explanation, appendix and derived outputs.
D/26 and subgrades C/D are historical values previously displayed for the liposomal NAD+ claim. They are not ratings of LNAD+ or the RENEWAL trial, nor newly validated liposomal efficacy scores after this formulation correction. Historical item-level calculations and deductions remain unverified; no numerical adjustment was invented.
Formulation and evidence role
Before:
RENEWAL labelled Key in the liposomal verdict, with applicability caveats confined to the text.After: Separated as a non-liposomal LNAD+ reference; excluded from direct liposomal efficacy evidence. The actual comparator was PEG placebo.
The tested formulation differs from the formulation addressed by the verdict.
Source ↗Interpretation of historical scores
Before:
D/26 and C/D described as retained values, but cards and subgrade tables could be read as current LNAD+ ratings.After: D/26 and subgrades C/D are historical values previously displayed for the liposomal NAD+ claim. They are not ratings of LNAD+ or the RENEWAL trial, nor newly validated liposomal efficacy scores after this formulation correction. Historical item-level calculations and deductions remain unverified; no numerical adjustment was invented.
Historical ratings must not be reassigned to another formulation or claim; unverified calculations are not reconstructed by assumption.
Source ↗
Public version immediately before this formulation correction. Previous evidence cutoff: 2026-09-28
Read the complete previous version ↗ · Previous correction explanation · Previous S3 appendix · All corrections and updates
The distinction uses the author clarification and published report. It does not reject the positive result or imply a head-to-head comparison with liposomal products. The previous publication correction and explanation remain separately preserved.
Change history · 2026-09-28
Updated RENEWAL-NAD+ to the published GeroScience report; corrected preprint limitation language, overstatement of nonsignificance and registry dates.
D/26 and subgrades C/D are retained legacy values, not newly calculated scores. The historical axis-level calculation and any preprint-specific deduction could not be verified, so no points were inferred or restored. The legacy 26 is not a current fixed anchor and is not represented as a newly validated calculator result.
Publication status
Before:
Manufacturer-funded preprintAfter: Published in GeroScience: July 30, 2026
Aligned current status with the publisher record. The July 17 review, June 26 acceptance and July 30 publication are distinct; historical availability is not inferred.
Source ↗Grading rationale
Before:
D/26 with preprint status among the limitationsAfter: Preprint limitation removed; D/26 and subgrades C/D retained, not recalculated
D/26 and subgrades C/D are retained legacy values, not newly calculated scores. The historical axis-level calculation and any preprint-specific deduction could not be verified, so no points were inferred or restored. The legacy 26 is not a current fixed anchor and is not represented as a newly validated calculator result.
Source ↗Nonsignificant results
Before:
All null / no effectAfter: No significant corrected difference; not proof of no effect
The published report notes limited power for secondary outcomes. Surrogate change is distinguished from clinical benefit.
Source ↗Registry dates
Before:
Registered January 4, 2026After: First submitted December 19, 2025; QC submission January 4, 2026; first posted January 13, 2026
Distinguished separate date fields in the official registry.
Source ↗Cell-study author
Before:
Rodriguez-Cetina Biefer et al. 2002After: Khan AU et al. 2002
Corrected an evidence-table author mismatch against citation 4 already on the page; no new human evidence added.
Source ↗
This archive is the first captured version before the update, not a verified first publication. Previous evidence cutoff: 2026-07-17
Read the complete previous version ↗ · All corrections and updates
The preprint and published report count as one study. Access restrictions prevented full text-to-text comparison. The request is attributed to a reader report; private contact details are not published.
Supplementary explanation · 2026-09-30
Published the correction explanation, limitations of historical scoring records and a separate experimental methodology appendix. Publishing this explanation did not recalculate the score.
Correction explanation · Experimental methodology appendix · Complete page before this addition
Cite the formulation distinction and historical status
RENEWAL-NAD+ evaluated LathMized® NAD+ (LNAD+), a non-liposomal, physicochemically modulated formulation that alters supramolecular organization and solution behavior while preserving the native molecular structure of NAD+. It is included here only as a separate reference for direct oral NAD+, not as direct efficacy evidence for liposomal NAD+ products. Its results should not be generalized to liposomal products. The trial comparator was PEG placebo, not a liposomal product.
D/26 and subgrades C/D are historical values previously displayed for the liposomal NAD+ claim. They are not ratings of LNAD+ or the RENEWAL trial, nor newly validated liposomal efficacy scores after this formulation correction. Historical item-level calculations and deductions remain unverified; no numerical adjustment was invented.
https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/energy/liposomal-nad-cellular-energy-mitochondria/ · CC BY 4.0What this document does and does not do
Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.