Skip to content

Printed from https://bottledhope.co/supplements/nmn/. Last reviewed 2026-09-25. Check the site for the latest version.

NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide)

A building block the body uses to make NAD+, a molecule cells use to produce energy. It is promoted with claims about aging, metabolism and blood sugar.

Explained simply · Last reviewed

What it is

NMN, short for nicotinamide mononucleotide, is a building block (precursor) the body uses to make NAD+. A 2026 review of NMN trials describes NAD+ as a key helper molecule (coenzyme) that takes part in energy metabolism and DNA repair. A 2024 review describes NMN as an emerging supplement "extensively promoted for the claimed anti-aging benefits". It says the claimed benefits include weight loss, enhanced metabolism and preventing age-related diseases such as type 2 diabetes and high blood sugar.

More about NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide)

A 2026 review of NMN trials describes NAD+ as a key helper molecule (coenzyme) that takes part in energy metabolism and DNA repair. A 2024 review describes NMN as an emerging supplement "extensively promoted for the claimed anti-aging benefits". It says the claimed benefits include weight loss, enhanced metabolism and preventing age-related diseases such as type 2 diabetes and high blood sugar.

The 2024 review also notes that NAD+ levels fall with age in mammals. The 2026 review, citing another review, notes that evidence for this fall in humans remains limited across tissues. It reports that the cited review also said rodent-based mechanistic findings should not be applied directly to people.

The 2026 review states that beta-NMN is the form generally meant by "NMN" in supplements and in human trials. The 2024 review describes nicotinamide riboside (NR) as another vitamin B3 derivative involved in making NAD+, closely linked with NMN. The European Food Safety Authority describes how NMN in the blood could be converted to NR, taken up by cells, turned back into NMN and then made into NAD.

The 2024 review found eight randomized trials of NMN, published from 2021 to 2023 and lasting 14 days to 12 weeks. The trials in the 2026 review lasted 14 days to 24 weeks.

Also known as: beta-nicotinamide mononucleotide, β-NMN, NAD+ precursor

At a glance

Safety: known risks and 3 groups who should avoid it or take extra care. See Safety ↓

Claims made about NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide), and how strong the evidence is for each:

Longevity and aging claims

Claims made about NMN (nicotinamide mononucleotide) and aging, and how strong the evidence is for each. A change in a marker is not the same as a longer life.

Each rating follows our published rules and the sources cited for it. We don’t add our own medical judgment. How we rate

Safety

Read this before the ratings below.

Risks

  • In short-term trials, people taking NMN did not report more side effects than people taking a placebo. A 2026 meta-analysis of randomized trials lasting from 14 days to 24 weeks found no increase in overall, serious or system-specific adverse events, or in people stopping because of them, and no rise in the liver enzymes ALT and AST. The reviewers rated their certainty moderate for overall adverse events and very low for serious adverse events, which were rare. They state that the data cannot rule out rare, delayed, long-term, high-dose or population-specific risks.
  • Long-term safety is not known. A 2024 meta-analysis notes that the trials it reviewed lasted 12 weeks or less, and that the safety of taking higher doses for a long time, particularly in older people, is uncertain. It reports that none of the trials raised safety concerns, but that two trials seemed to record more adverse events, whether or not caused by NMN, in groups given higher doses. It also notes that NMN taken by mouth can be turned into nicotinamide, a form of vitamin B3 with its own upper intake limit, which it says should be considered for higher doses.
  • A 2025 meta-analysis reports that side effects were mostly digestive (for example diarrhea or abdominal pain), with other minor issues such as skin problems and mouth ulcers, all mild to moderate.
  • The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) assessed one chemically synthesized β-NMN product at the request of the European Commission. In its 2026 opinion, the panel concluded that it is safe for adults, excluding pregnant and breastfeeding women, under the conditions of use the applying company proposed: use in food supplements "up to 300 mg/day". That figure is the company’s proposed use, which EFSA evaluated, not a recommended intake. It found no adverse effects reported in the human studies it reviewed, the longest of which lasted 24 weeks. In a 90-day study in rats, it judged changes in the reproductive organs at the highest dose tested to be adverse. The opinion relied in part on unpublished data supplied by the company that applied, and one of the human trials was run by that company.
  • United States: in a letter dated 29 September 2025 responding to a citizen petition, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that it "now conclude[s] that NMN is not excluded from the definition of dietary supplement under section 201(ff)(3)(B)", a provision that excludes substances approved or authorized for investigation as drugs before they were marketed as supplements or foods. FDA bases this on evidence that NMN "was marketed as a dietary supplement in the United States as early as 2017", before NMN was authorized for investigation as a new drug. This reverses the position FDA took in 2022, when it wrote to companies that NMN was excluded under that provision. The same letter states that "NMN is an NDI under section 413(d)", that is, a new dietary ingredient, and explains that if the required premarket notification is not submitted to FDA, "the dietary supplement containing the NDI is deemed to be adulterated". The letter does not say that any NMN product is lawfully marketed or safe. It states that "[a] product’s safety profile does not determine" the question it decided. The EFSA opinion above is a separate, European safety assessment.

Who should avoid it or take extra care

  • Pregnant or breastfeeding women: the EFSA safety conclusion does not cover them.
  • Children and teenagers: the EFSA assessment covers adults only, and the cited meta-analyses included only trials in adults.
  • Older adults with other health conditions, people with long-term illnesses such as diabetes, and anyone taking regular medication: the 2026 meta-analysis states that drug interactions and adverse events in these groups still need to be studied in larger, longer trials.

Safety sources: Source [1]Source [2]Source [3]Source [4]Source [5]

What the evidence says

Each claim is rated on its own evidence. Ratings follow the scale on our methodology page.

  • Improves blood sugar control (fasting glucose and HbA1c) Evidence rating: Evidence against

    People take it hoping it will improve their blood sugar.

    Three meta-analyses found no significant effect of NMN on fasting glucose or HbA1c; the 2026 one rated its certainty moderate for fasting glucose and low for HbA1c.

    A 2024 meta-analysis pooled eight small randomized trials in 342 middle-aged and older adults. Most did not have diabetes, and the trials lasted 14 days to 12 weeks. It found no significant benefit of NMN on fasting glucose or HbA1c. The authors conclude that their findings do not support NMN for improving glucose and lipid metabolism in the general population. They say their findings cannot be applied to people with diabetes or high blood lipids, or to those at risk of them.

    A 2025 meta-analysis of 12 trials in 513 adults also found no significant effect on fasting glucose (seven trials) or HbA1c (five trials). Its authors write that the trials were powered to detect changes in its main outcomes, fasting glucose among them. They also write that the small number of studies limited the statistical power of their analysis. They report that many trials had a moderate to high risk of bias, and that more studies are needed to establish the exact effects of NMN. They add that most participants’ test results were normal at the start, which limited how much they could improve.

    A 2026 meta-analysis of 15 trials also found no significant change in fasting glucose or HbA1c. Its authors rated how sure they could be (certainty) moderate for fasting glucose and low for HbA1c. They state that NMN should not be regarded as an established treatment for diabetes. They add that their results should be understood as defining the boundaries of NMN’s clinical application and future research directions, rather than negating its potential value.

    This rating covers mainly adults without diabetes, the people most of the trials studied.

    Sources: Source [1]Source [2]Source [3]

  • Improves insulin sensitivity Evidence rating: Insufficient

    People take it hoping it will help their body respond better to insulin.

    Three meta-analyses found no significant effect on HOMA-IR, a measure of insulin resistance; the 2026 one reports a downward trend and rates its certainty very low.

    The cited meta-analyses read the same small body of evidence differently. A 2026 review found a downward trend in HOMA-IR, a measure of insulin resistance, across five comparisons in 160 people. The trend was not statistically significant, and the reviewers rated their certainty very low. They describe it as suggesting a possible effect on insulin sensitivity, a hypothesis-generating signal that needs testing in larger and longer trials.

    A 2024 review found no significant effect on fasting insulin or HOMA-IR. A borderline HOMA-IR reduction across three trials was no longer apparent when one trial was left out, a trial in which the placebo group had worsened. The review notes that the only trial in people with prediabetes found improved insulin sensitivity in muscle. It says its findings cannot be applied to people with diabetes or at risk of it.

    A 2025 meta-analysis also found no significant effect on fasting insulin (four trials) or HOMA-IR (four trials). For fasting insulin, its sensitivity analyses gave results inconsistent with the main analysis.

    Under this site’s rules, an insufficient rating means the cited evidence is too limited to show whether there is an effect. It does not mean the sources found no effect.

    Sources: Source [1]Source [2]Source [3]

  • Improves muscle strength, muscle mass or physical function in older adults Evidence rating: Insufficient

    Older adults take it hoping it will help them keep their muscle and strength.

    Two meta-analyses found no significant effect of NMN on muscle mass or strength and a third none on pooled physical performance; one rated its strength evidence low certainty, for all precursors.

    A 2025 meta-analysis pooled randomized, placebo-controlled trials in adults with an average age over 60. It found no significant effect of NMN on muscle mass, grip strength, walking speed or a chair-stand test. Each pooled result rested on two to five comparisons. Single trials found no improvement in knee strength, a standard physical performance test, or thigh muscle mass. The authors call the results largely inconclusive.

    The same 2025 review describes one four-week trial in which thigh muscle fell slightly with NMN compared with placebo, and the placebo group managed more leg-press repetitions. The authors describe the effects in that trial as particularly small and clinically insignificant. Their conclusion covers NMN and nicotinamide riboside (NR) together: current evidence does not support either for improving muscle function and mass in adults over 60. The pooled figures above are for NMN alone. NR is a different substance, and the review’s NR results are not reported here. The review by Prokopidis et al. discloses that one of its authors received lecture fees from Abbott, Pfizer and HC-UK conferences, outside the submitted work.

    Two reviews of adults of all ages also found no significant effect on strength or physical performance. A 2026 network meta-analysis of NAD+ precursors found no significant improvement in muscle strength with NMN compared with placebo, measured for example as grip strength or sit-to-stand tests. Its reviewers rated the certainty of the strength evidence low, for all the precursors together rather than for NMN alone. A 2025 meta-analysis of NMN trials pooled physical performance measures from seven trials. Where a trial reported more than one, it used grip strength first, then a six-minute walk test. It found no significant effect, which its authors describe as a trend toward improvement.

    The six-minute walk test is also one of the endurance measures in the 2026 network meta-analysis. That review reported improved endurance at the doses it classed as medium and high; see the endurance entry below. Under this site’s rules, an insufficient rating means the cited evidence is too limited to show whether there is an effect. It does not mean the sources found no effect.

    Sources: Source [1]Source [2]Source [3]

  • Improves endurance and aerobic capacity Evidence rating: Limited

    People take it hoping it will help them keep going for longer when they exercise.

    A 2026 network meta-analysis reports better endurance at medium and high NMN doses and rates its certainty high; a 2025 meta-analysis rated one of its trials at higher risk of bias than it did.

    A 2026 network meta-analysis of NAD+ precursors combined 14 studies with 540 adults on aerobic capacity and endurance. Its measures included, for example, VO2max, exercise duration and the six-minute walk test. The network includes studies of other precursors as well as NMN. The review reports that, compared with placebo, the doses it classed as medium and high improved these measures in its network analysis, and the low dose did not. The reviewers rated the certainty of this evidence high, in a table in the review’s supplementary material. They describe "strong and dose-dependent effects of NMN on endurance-related outcomes", and write that NMN at medium and high doses showed "the clearest and most robust benefit for endurance-related motor performance".

    This page rates the evidence lower, for reasons the cited sources report. The review’s forest plot lists three NMN trial reports for this outcome. Huang 2022 was a single-dose trial the review lists under the low dose. Yi 2023 and Kuerec 2024, in healthy middle-aged adults, are each listed at the low, medium and high doses. A 2025 meta-analysis of NMN trials states that two studies it found "used data from the same cohort of participants" and counted them as one report, citing Kuerec 2024. Its list of included trials has Yi 2023 but not Kuerec 2024.

    In the network review’s direct comparisons with placebo, split by dose, the medium dose reached statistical significance and the high dose did not. The two reviews also judge the risk of bias of these trials differently. The network meta-analysis rated Huang 2022 and Yi 2023 at low risk and Kuerec 2024 as having some concerns, and did not lower its certainty for risk of bias. The 2025 meta-analysis rated Huang 2022, the single-dose trial, at high risk and Yi 2023 as having some concerns. For the medium and high doses, that disagreement concerns Yi 2023.

    For these reasons this page rates the evidence limited, below what the reviewers’ certainty rating alone would give. The network meta-analysis found no significant benefit for muscle strength (rated above). It was publicly funded, and its authors declare no commercial or financial conflicts.

    Sources: Source [1]Source [2]

Longevity and aging

What the cited sources report about lifespan, death from any cause, and markers studied in connection with aging. A change in a marker is not the same as a longer life. Each outcome is rated on its own evidence, on the same scale as the claims above.

  • Raises NAD+ levels in the blood Evidence rating: Limited

    People take it hoping to raise their NAD+ levels.

    EFSA and three reviews report that NMN raised NAD+ or related compounds in the blood, one for NMN and NR together; none of them graded the certainty of this finding.

    This is a blood marker in people, not a measure of aging or lifespan. In describing the human trials it reviewed, EFSA reports that blood levels of NAD and its metabolites (related compounds) rose significantly with β-NMN compared with placebo in every study. One of those trials was run by the company whose product EFSA was assessing. EFSA says these studies provide some evidence that NMN is absorbed and may be used to make NAD. It adds that they do not show how well it is absorbed compared with nicotinamide. Its formal conclusions address safety and niacin, not NAD+ levels.

    A 2024 meta-analysis reports that five of the eight trials it reviewed found blood NAD+ rose with NMN. It did not pool these results or rate their certainty. Its authors write that it is not clear whether this translates into NAD+ activity inside cells. They cite evidence that at least some NMN taken by mouth is converted to nicotinamide before it reaches the circulation.

    A 2025 meta-analysis did pool them. Across ten comparisons from seven trials, NMN significantly raised blood NAD levels compared with placebo, although results differed considerably between trials. It did not rate certainty. It judged seven of its twelve trials to have some concerns about risk of bias, and the other five a high risk. Noting that most clinical outcomes did not differ significantly from placebo, its authors write that their findings "suggest that an exaggeration of the benefits of NMN supplementation may exist in the field".

    A 2026 systematic review of NAD+ supplements states that oral NMN and nicotinamide riboside (NR) consistently raised NAD-related compounds in blood or blood cells. It adds that responses in body tissues were more variable. It did not pool results or formally grade certainty, and most of the randomized trials it assessed had some concerns about risk of bias. It notes that many trials were small and that follow-up was often short.

    Sources: Source [1]Source [2]Source [3]Source [4]

  • Helps people live longer Evidence rating: Insufficient

    People take it hoping it will help them live longer.

    None of the cited sources describes a study in people that measured lifespan; a 2026 review of NAD+ supplements reports mixed survival results in rodents.

    None of the cited sources describes a study in people that measured lifespan or death from any cause. A 2026 systematic review of 33 human and 80 rodent studies of NAD+ supplements found human follow-up ranging from single doses to 26 weeks. It concludes that clinical effectiveness for anti-aging outcomes remains inconclusive. It writes that establishing longer-term healthspan effects will require adequately powered trials lasting longer than most current studies.

    In rodents, the review reports that only a minority of studies measured survival or lifespan, with mixed results. Some found no clear lifespan effect, while others found increased survival or lifespan in specific contexts or models. The two it cites for that with NMN used mice that age prematurely and a heart-failure model. The review used rodent studies to judge biological plausibility, not to infer benefit in people.

    A rise in blood NAD+, rated above, is a change in a marker. None of the cited sources reports that NMN extends life in people.

    Sources: Source [1]Source [2]Source [3]

Which form the evidence used

Supplements are sold in several forms. This is what the sources on this page say about them — which form the research used, and any comparison those sources themselves made. Where they made none, this page does not rank the forms.

  • β-NMN (beta-nicotinamide mononucleotide), What the sources supportDetails

    The cited 2026 meta-analysis describes β-NMN as the form generally meant by "NMN" in supplements and in human trials. A few of the trials it pooled used MIB-626, a microcrystalline NMN preparation, and the authors note its absorption and effects may not be fully equivalent to ordinary NMN. The EFSA safety assessment covers one chemically synthesized β-NMN product of at least 99% purity. No cited source compares brands or manufacturing methods. Source [1]Source [2]

Sources

  1. Effects of Nicotinamide Mononucleotide on Glucose and Lipid Metabolism in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials
    Current Diabetes Reports, 2024 · Meta-analysis · Primary source
  2. Efficacy of oral nicotinamide mononucleotide supplementation on glucose and lipid metabolism for adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis on randomized controlled trials
    Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 2025 · Meta-analysis · Primary source
  3. Safety and Metabolism-Related Outcomes of Oral Nicotinamide Mononucleotide Supplementation in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Nutrients, 2026 · Meta-analysis · Primary source · Certainty: very low
  4. The Effect of Nicotinamide Mononucleotide and Riboside on Skeletal Muscle Mass and Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, 2025 · Meta-analysis · Primary source
    Some of its authors disclose ties to industry.
  5. Domain-specific effects of NAD+ precursors on fatigue and functional performance: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
    Frontiers in Nutrition, 2026 · Meta-analysis · Primary source · Certainty: low
  6. Safety of beta-nicotinamide mononucleotide (β-NMN) pursuant the regulation (EU) 2015/2283 and the bioavailability of nicotinamide from this source in the context of Directive 2002/46/EC
    EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (EFSA Journal), 2026 · Health authority summary · Primary source
  7. NAD⁺ supplementation for anti-aging and wellness: A PRISMA-guided systematic review of preclinical and clinical evidence
    Ageing Research Reviews, 2026 · Systematic review · Primary source
  8. Response Letter from FDA HFP to Natural Products Association and Alliance for Natural Health USA
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Human Foods Program, 2025 · Health authority summary · Primary source

Page history

Show all 6 changes to this page
  • — Rewritten to the content style guideline; ratings and sources unchanged.
  • — Published. The claims, the new endurance claim, the longevity outcomes, the safety section and every source passed the site's source and wording reviews over two revision rounds. The owner's rating and funding decisions are recorded in docs/08-open-decisions.md.
  • — Added an endurance and aerobic capacity entry, rated limited. It rests on a 2026 network meta-analysis (Gao et al.) that rated this evidence high certainty, and the page explains why it is rated lower: few small NMN trials, a high-dose result that was not significant in direct comparisons, and a 2025 meta-analysis that judged the same trials’ risk of bias higher. Added a 2025 meta-analysis of NMN trials (Zhang, Poon and Wong) to the blood sugar, insulin sensitivity, muscle and blood NAD+ entries and to the safety section, and the 2026 network meta-analysis to the muscle entry. No existing rating changed.
  • — Added a 2026 systematic review of NAD+ supplements (Gallagher and Emmanuel) to the blood NAD+ and lifespan entries: it reports mixed rodent survival results, with the NMN examples in prematurely aging mice and a heart-failure model, and no human lifespan data. The lifespan entry now rests on that review (basis changed from none to review). No rating changed.
  • — Added US regulatory status to the safety section, cited from FDA’s 29 September 2025 response to a citizen petition, which concludes that NMN is not excluded from the definition of dietary supplement under section 201(ff)(3)(B), the provision about substances first approved or studied as drugs, reversing FDA’s 2022 position under that provision. The letter also states that NMN is a new dietary ingredient; it does not say any NMN product is lawfully marketed or safe. No rating changed.
  • — Drafted.