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?

 

[GimmeABreak]

But the question I have for you guys is why is it we only look for buffered NAD+ and not all peptides buffered?

I think some peptides need to be at a certain ph to avoid degradation. I think Cagri has a very high ph but if you lower it too much (even during reconstitution) you can cause the pep to degrade.

 

[husla22]

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.

I think these two have large MOQ so only really available through a group buy. PGB, the problem I have is it's not purity tested and also (a bigger issue for me) no international orders to Europe.

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.

Thank you for answering this. What you say make sense. The natural PH will play a big role and I would assume so would dose. If you are dosing in mcg then even a low PH wouldn't be as a big of a deal as dosing in MG. You would have to dilute the peptide significantly to get to mcg. However with NAD+ it's got a naturally low PH and you are dosing high MG (50-100mg) so it's more important. This all makes sense to me. Thank you!

I don't think anyone here said that.

There are MANY people who say this to me all the time, I appreciate that you are not one of them!

Am I allowed to ask what PGB stands for?

It's a group that (for the time being US ONLY) sells peptides that only accept crypto.

 

[WellnessWanderer]

I think these two have large MOQ so only really available through a group buy. PGB, the problem I have is it's not purity tested and also (a bigger issue for me) no international orders to Europe.


Thank you for answering this. What you say make sense. The natural PH will play a big role and I would assume so would dose. If you are dosing in mcg then even a low PH wouldn't be as a big of a deal as dosing in MG. You would have to dilute the peptide significantly to get to mcg. However with NAD+ it's got a naturally low PH and you are dosing high MG (50-100mg) so it's more important. This all makes sense to me. Thank you!


There are MANY people who say this to me all the time, I appreciate that you are not one of them!


It's a group that (for the time being US ONLY) sells peptides that only accept crypto.

Thank you. I kind of guessed with the letters stood for, but couldn’t find it via search so thought I would ask.

 

[zpped]

I still stand by that labs like mz doing purity results on NAD is wrong and misleading. (actually i believe mz in general has bad methodology for purity measurement) But I'm no chemist so I'm just repeating what smarter people have told me.

 

[husla22]

I still stand by that labs like mz doing purity results on NAD is wrong and misleading. (actually i believe mz in general has bad methodology for purity measurement) But I'm no chemist so I'm just repeating what smarter people have told me.

Thanks for sharing, but that statement doesn’t quite add up. NAD+ is a well-characterized molecule, and HPLC is a gold standard for purity testing—used globally for both peptides and small molecules. If a lab has validated its methods, there's no reason purity results for NAD+ would be "wrong or misleading." MZ BIO is a US lab therefore falls under US regulatory standards of practice which are quite strict. We are not talking about some banana republic lab here.

Sweeping claims like "mz has bad methodology" without specifics don't hold much weight. If there's an actual issue with the lab’s validation or method, that’s fair to critique—but just dismissing the process without evidence doesn’t make sense. HPLC works because it separates and quantifies compounds accurately, and NAD+ is no exception.

Like I said before, statements like "NAD+ can't be purity tested as a peptide" are accurate, but it can be purity tested as a small molecule. This is common practice in the pharmaceutical industry. There seems to be a myth that because Janoshik doesn't test it, it's not possible but this is COMPLETELY false.

 

[zpped]

Thanks for sharing, but that statement doesn’t quite add up. NAD+ is a well-characterized molecule, and HPLC is a gold standard for purity testing—used globally for both peptides and small molecules. If a lab has validated its methods, there's no reason purity results for NAD+ would be "wrong or misleading." MZ BIO is a US lab therefore falls under US regulatory standards of practice which are quite strict. We are not talking about some banana republic lab here.

Sweeping claims like "mz has bad methodology" without specifics don't hold much weight. If there's an actual issue with the lab’s validation or method, that’s fair to critique—but just dismissing the process without evidence doesn’t make sense. HPLC works because it separates and quantifies compounds accurately, and NAD+ is no exception.

Like I said before, statements like "NAD+ can't be purity tested as a peptide" are accurate, but it can be purity tested as a small molecule. This is common practice in the pharmaceutical industry. There seems to be a myth that because Janoshik doesn't test it, it's not possible but this is COMPLETELY false.

You're arguing with the wrong audience. If you know something Jano doesn't I'd love to see you have that conversation with him. He makes himself available on multiple platforms.

edit to add: also good news, pgb now has nad for non americans.

 

[husla22]

You're arguing with the wrong audience. If you know something Jano doesn't I'd love to see you have that conversation with him. He makes himself available on multiple platforms.

edit to add: also good news, pgb now has nad for non americans.

I have spoken to Janoshik about this and was told NAD+ is not a peptide so can't be measured for purity as a peptide.

Like I keep saying this is true however it CAN be tested as a small molecule. Like I keep saying this is common practice in pharmaceuticals.

Lastly I don't come here to argue but if there is something lacking in my understanding then I'm more than open to learn.

Also thank you for the heads up about PGB! Appreciate it.

 

[Valerie]

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.



I don't think anyone here said that.

A rep at SRY told me that when I asked for a coa. they provided fill info only.

 

[husla22]

A rep at SRY told me that when I asked for a coa. they provided fill info only.

Right this is what I'm told as well but it's possible to test for purity as a small molecule, just not all labs support it because only have methods for purity testing peptides.