NAD+ Buffered vs UnBuffered?

[husla22]

Hey Guys,

For anyone taking NAD+ can you please help me out here. How important is that the NAD+ is buffered (p.h. controlled). If you had the option of a higher purity but not buffered vs lower purity but buffered which would you go for (Assuming all else equal)?

I understand that the dose for NAD+ is much higher than other peptides therefore injecting with a highly acidic solution can be problematic but there seem to be so many sellers suppliers selling non buffered NAD+ that I'm a little unsure.

Thanks!

 

[zpped]

first, just for clarity NAD isn't a peptide so the purity measurement is meaningless and shouldn't even really be included. but the dosage isn't the issue, it's the ph. to far on the ph scale and it starts to hurt and a little further it starts doing real tissue damage. people buying non-buffered should be adjusting the PH themselves after reconstituting. pgb has the best

 

[GimmeABreak]

I think people prefer unbuffered because the manufacturer adding the buffer adds uncertainty regarding exactly what they are using to buffer it. Thats the only reason I can come up with as to why unbuffered even exists. PGB does have excellent NAD+ and I suspect that they are specifying what is used to buffer when they order.

Ordering unbuffered isn't that big of a deal as you can just add sodium bicarbonate when you reconstitute it and adjust the PH up. Once you figure out how much SB to add the next vial goes a lot quicker. I ph test all of my peps when reconstituting, just takes a second to put a drop on the litmus paper and avoids a surprise when you inject.

 

[husla22]

I would much rather just get some buffered version of it than messing around with the ph levels every time I have to reconstitute. The issue I have with PGB is they don't currently offer international orders. But the question I have for you guys is why is it we only look for buffered NAD+ and not all peptides buffered?

With regards to purity testing, there is this claim around the internet that "NAD+ cannot be purity tested". This seems to come from Janoshik reports that don't test it. However the techniques and certifications for peptides (e.g., COAs focusing on amino acid-related impurities) differ from those applicable to small molecules like NAD+. NAD+ is a nucleotide-based coenzyme, not a peptide therefore, methods designed specifically to test peptide purity, using peptide-specific standards, may not directly apply to NAD+. Statements like "NAD+ cannot be purity tested as a peptide" are technically correct because it isn’t a peptide. However, this does not mean NAD+ cannot be purity tested—just that it requires a tailored analytical approach.
Labs providing purity testing for NAD+ typically do not use peptide-specific protocols but instead utilize small-molecule analysis techniques. There is a US Lab called MZ Bio that tests the purity accurately but the method is different to simpler peptides.

This is also why I don't like the PGB stuff, it's not purity tested. Lots of COA testing reports vendors use to sell NAD+ just show weight because that's all Janoshik does but other labs do offer NAD+ purity testing. It's like Janoshik is the gold standard for testing, almost like a brand recognition and people don't look at what are the weaknesses. I'm not saying they are bad, just they don't do NAD+ purity testing and that doesn't mean it can't be done.

 

[Valerie]

I would much rather just get some buffered version of it than messing around with the ph levels every time I have to reconstitute. The issue I have with PGB is they don't currently offer international orders. But the question I have for you guys is why is it we only look for buffered NAD+ and not all peptides buffered?

With regards to purity testing, there is this claim around the internet that "NAD+ cannot be purity tested". This seems to come from Janoshik reports that don't test it. However the techniques and certifications for peptides (e.g., COAs focusing on amino acid-related impurities) differ from those applicable to small molecules like NAD+. NAD+ is a nucleotide-based coenzyme, not a peptide therefore, methods designed specifically to test peptide purity, using peptide-specific standards, may not directly apply to NAD+. Statements like "NAD+ cannot be purity tested as a peptide" are technically correct because it isn’t a peptide. However, this does not mean NAD+ cannot be purity tested—just that it requires a tailored analytical approach.
Labs providing purity testing for NAD+ typically do not use peptide-specific protocols but instead utilize small-molecule analysis techniques. There is a US Lab called MZ Bio that tests the purity accurately but the method is different to simpler peptides.

This is also why I don't like the PGB stuff, it's not purity tested. Lots of COA testing reports vendors use to sell NAD+ just show weight because that's all Janoshik does but other labs do offer NAD+ purity testing. It's like Janoshik is the gold standard for testing, almost like a brand recognition and people don't look at what are the weaknesses. I'm not saying they are bad, just they don't do NAD+ purity testing and that doesn't mean it can't be done.

ALM and Rosen also have buffered Nad. I agree with the other comments; my preference is PGB. I have used both buffered and not buffered.

 

[zpped]

why is it we only look for buffered NAD+ and not all peptides buffered?

Your question is assuming something that isn't true. We do look for buffering in other peptides. Some of them are more important than others based on natural ph of the product in question. Nad is one of the more extreme ones.

With regards to purity testing, there is this claim around the internet that "NAD+ cannot be purity tested".

I don't think anyone here said that.

 

[WellnessWanderer]

Am I allowed to ask what PGB stands for?